UC-NRLF 


$B    SbM    13T 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

University  of  California. 


GIF^T  OK 


5.a^....^l^..^C^..:.3'^A.UyyaJ(. 


..o^ 


Class 


mm'^iw7'::^mm  mm 


DEMOCRATIC 

CAMPAIGN 
BOOK 

CONGRESSIONAL 
ELECTION 

1906 


**Equal  rights  to  all,  special  privileges 
to  none'* 

ISSUED  BY  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 

DEMOCRATIC  CONGRESSIONAL 
COMMITTEE 

WASHINGTON  HEADQUARTERS 
Munscy  Buildings  Washington,  D.  C. 

CHICAGO  HEADQUARTERS 
Palmer  House,  Chicago,  Illinois 

PRICE,  '5  CENTS 


THE    SUN    JOB    PRINT,    BALTIMORE 


EXPORT  PRICES  OF  SEWING  MACHINES.' 


(Reproduced  from  Exporters'  and   Importers'  Journal  of  May 

17,  1902.  published  by  Henry  W.  Peabody  &,  Co..  of  New 

York,  for  circulation  in  foreign  countries  only.' 


SIOAVIXG    MACHIXRS. 


(New  Domestic  Sewinj^  Machine  Co.) 
llisfli  .\ ward-   The  rjold  Medal,  ran-American  Exposition. 

IfiuhcMt  Gruile  Hifth  Arm  Foot  3Iaeliine. 


No.  1      Ma  oh 

ine. 

each . 

.$14  40 

*Xo.   4   Machine,  each. 

.$10  00 

\o.  1  l/j 

" 

.    1 .-)  1 0 

*Xo.   7 

.    21  80 

♦No.  2 

.  1  r.  jso 

*No.   8           •• 

.    19  00 

*XO.  I'Vl!          " 

••     . 

.    Kino 

Desk  ('a  bin  el 

.    84  00 

*\o.  -.', 

.    17  20 

Di.*«4MMiiit,  .Machines  for  Mexico.  Central  and  Souih 
America  and  the  West  Indies,  Xo.  <{:24;  for  the  Australasian 
Colonies.  Africa,  British  East  Indies.  .Tapan.  Philippine  Is- 
lands and  China.  Xo.  5<). 

Note — W'Blnnt  wood  is  used  on  all  machines,  but  those 
with  *  can  also  be  had  in  oak  if  ho  ordere«l. 

Coronet    .Se^viiiK-   MachiiieH. 

(.Made  by   the   Davis  Sewing  Machine  Co.) 
.•<iyie. 

.\'o.   1 .  plain  tal)le.  without  cover.  1  drawer.      Price  each  .  .'>7  70 

No.    2.  plain  table  with  cover.  1  drawer.      Price  each.  ...  8  60 

No.    :{.  end  leaf  table  with  cover.  1  drawer.      I'rice  each. .  s  80 

No.  .'{7.  end  leaf  table  with  cover.  H  drawers.     Price  each .  0  10 

No.  ."^S.  end  leaf  table  with  cover,  5  drawers.     I'rice  each .  J>  65 

No.  ?>r>.  end  leaf  table  with  cover.  7  drawers.     Price  each.  10  20 

.No.  .'i7,  drop  head,  .'i  drawers.    Price  each 0  65 

No.  .'!8.  drop  head,  5  drawers.    Price  each 1  ()  I'O 

Hand  .Machine,  iron  b;ise.      Price  each 4  ."io 

Hand  .Machine,  wood  base.      Price  each }  no 

Hand  .Machine,  wood  Imse  -and  cover.      Price  each <;  1(» 

Kor  1  and  macliincs,  without  attachments.  15  cents  less. 

DiMooiint    Xo.    7U. 


The  "Price  Current  Discount  Sheet"  of  May  17,  1902.  gives  dis- 
count number  624  as  "8%,"  number  50  "on  amplication,"  and  num- 
ber 79  "net."     This  makes  the  export  pric    >^f  tb*-  ^'       r  ^  nsi 
No.  1.  $13.25.  and  Nos.  4  and  9,  $17.48.     ^ 
can   be  obtained  in   this  country.     Ordinj. 
Domestic  range  from  $30  to  $50.     Cash  w; 
tailers  are  from  about  $20  to  $30. 

The  prices  of  the  Coronet   (Davis)    mac 
solves.     The  .\merican  prices  are  aboui  IOC 


DEMOCRATIC 


Campaign  Book 


Congressional  Election 


1906 


m-/^iC^'^^.  '^-  -i^'x-y^-rir-Kv:^  ■■-^-— ^^^'  ^' >"^ 


„>■      ST. 


The  price  of  this  book  is  twenty-five  (25)  cents— 
hardly  more  than  the  cost  of  printing.  If  you  have 
not  remitted  please  do  so  at  once.  If  you  will  enclose 
us  one  dollar  ($1)  we  will  send  you,  in  addition  to 
this  book,  copies  of  all  campaign  literature  published 
by  us.      Remit  to 

J.    M.    GRIGGS,    Chairman, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


wasnmgion  neaaquariers,   Munsey  Building,   Washington,  U.  G. 
Chicago  Headquarters,         Palmer  House,  Chicago,  Illinois 


PRICE,  2?  CENTS 


BALTIMORE 

•The  Sun  Book  and  Job  Printing  Office 

1906 


EXPORT  PRICES  OF  SEWING  MACHINES. 


(Reproduced  from  Exporters'  and   importers'  Journal  of  May 

17,  1902.  published  by  Henry  W.  Peabody  &  Co..  of  New 

York,  for  circulation  in  foreign  countries  only.) 


SEWIXG    MACHINES. 


(Xew  Domestic  Sewing  Macliine  Co.) 
High  Award — The  Gold  Medal,  Pan-American  Exposition. 

Hi)g(heMt  Grade  Higrh  Arm  Foot  31acliine. 

No.  1      Machine,  each.  ..$14  40     *No.  4   Machine,  each  .  .$19  (»(> 


No.  1  % 

'• 

.  .    1.-)  10 

*No.   7 

" 

•'     .  .    21  80 

*No.  2 

.  .    1  ."■)  80 

*No.   8 

-     . .    10  00 

*No.  2Va       " 

. .  16  no 

Desk  r 

ibinet 

••     .  .    .-{4  00 

*Xo.  .'5 

Ma 

. .    17  20 

•hilK^v;         fill' 

\rMvi<.<. 

Xo.  M8.  drop  head.  .")  drawers.    Price  each lo  20 

Hand  Machine,  iron  base.     Price  each 4  50 

Hand  Machine,  wood  base.      Price  each 4  90 

Hand  Machine,  wood  base  and  cover.      I'rice  each (J  10 

For  land  machines,  without  attachments,  l."»  cents  less. 

ULseoiiiit    Xo.    7!>. 


The  "Price  Current  Discount  Sheet"  of  May  17,  1902.  gives  dis- 
count number  624  as  "8%,"  number  50  "on  amplication,"  and  num- 
ber 79  "net."     This  makes  the  export  pric       '  tV-    ^'        r      :    snr 
No.  1,  $13.2.5,  and  Nos.  4  and  9,  $17.48.     ^ 
can   be  obtained   in   this  country.  ,  Ordim. 
Domestic  range  from  $30  to  $50.     Cash  wh;      -  . 
tailers  are  from  about  $20  to  $30. 

The  prices  of  the  Coronet   (Davis)    ma( 
selves.    The  American  prices  are  about  IOC 


I 


DEMOCRATIC 


Campaign  Book 


Congressional  Election 


1906 


"Equal  rights  to  all,  special  privileges  to  none" 


i 


ISSUED  BY  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 


Democratic  Congressional  Committee 

Washington  Headquarters,  Munsey  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Chicago  Headquarters,         Palmer  House,  Chicago,  Illinois 

OF  THE 


PRICE,  2?  CENTS 


BAIiTIMOKE 

•The  Sun  Book  and  Job  Printing  Office 

1906 


hi 


SUMMARY  OF  CONTENTS    , 


:^^\ 


THE    DEMOCRATIC   PLATFORM. 

FUNDAMENTAL    PRINCIPLES   OF    DEMOCRACY. 

THE  TARIFF— ITS  INIQUITIES. 

TARIFF   HISTORY. 

REVENUE   TARIFF  AND   PROSPERITY.  ^^ 

TRUSTS   AND  COMBINES. 

EXPORT   PRICES— LESS   THAN    HOME   PRICES. 

GOVERNMENT  PARTNERSHIP  WITH   THE  TRUSTS. 

WAGES  AND  INCOMES. 

COST   OF   LIVING    HIGHER. 

PRICES  AND  WAGES. 

EXPORTS   OF   MANUFACTURES. 

WAGES— DISASTROUS  EFFECT  OF  McKINLEY  TARIFF  ON. 

TRUSTS   AIDED   BY   McKINLEY  TARIFF. 

SECRETARY   FOSTER   AND   HIS   FANTASTIC    FINANCING. 

IRON   AND  STEEL  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

THE   LIFE   INSURANCE   SCANDAL. 

JUDGE    PARKER'S    CHARGE   OF    CORRUPTION    PROVEN. 

MR.    ROOSEVELT'S    DENIAL   OF   CORRUPTION    NOT   TRUE. 

PANAMA   CANAL   SUPPLIES   PURCHASED   ABROAD. 

SHIP  SUBSIDY   LEGISLATION. 

FIFTY   MEN   AND   THEIR    POWER. 

BRYAN    ON    ROOSEVELT'S   ADMINISTRATION. 

THE  COMMERCE  ACT— ITS   HISTORY. 

EXTRAVAGANT   APPROPRIATIONS. 

DEFICIENCIES— HOW   MADE. 

THE   FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

SCANDALS— NEW  YORK   CUSTOM   HOUSE,   ETC. 

DEMOCRATS  AND   ORGANIZED   LABOR. 

ROOSEVELT'S  INCONSISTENCIES.  j 

THE   MOTIVE   BEHIND  THE  "BIG  STICK."  * 

INJUNCTION    SUITS,   CRIMINAL    PROSECUTION,  ^'^.TC.^ 

FARCICAL    PROSECUTION    OF   THE   TRUSTS. 

WHOLESALE   PRICES,   1897-1905. 

STATISTICS  ON   WAGES. 

APPENDICES 

Comparison  of  Export  and   Home  Prices. 
Operations  of  McKinley  Tariff  by  Months. 
Yea  and  Nay  Votes  on  Party  Questions. 
A  List  of  Trusts  in  the  United  States. 


I. 


OF  THE     '^ 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 

Democratic  Campaign  Book-1906 

PLATFORM  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY,  ADOPTED 
AT  ST.  LOUIS,  MO.,  JULY  8,  1904. 

The  Democratic  party  of  the  United  States,  in  national  conven- 
tion assembled,  declares  its  devotion  to  the  essential  principles  of 
the  Democratic  faith  which  bring  us  together  in  party  communion. 

Under  them  local  self-government  and  national  unity  and  pros- 
perity were  alike  established.  They  underlaid  our  independence, 
the  structure  of  our  free  republic,  and  every  Democratic  extension 
from  Louisiana  to  California,  and  Texas  to  Oregon,  which  pre- 
serves faithfully  in  all  the  States  the  tie  between  taxation  and 
representation.  They  yet  inspire  masses  of  our  people,  guarding 
jealously  their  rights  and  liberties,  and  cherishing  their 
fraternity,  peace  and  orderly  development.  They  remind  us  of 
our  duties  and  responsibilities  as  citizens,  and  impress  upon  us, 
particularly  at  this  time,  the  necessity  of  reform  and  the  rescue 
of  the  administration  of  government  from  the  headstrong, 
arbitrary  and  spasmodic  methods  which  distract  business  by 
uncertainty,  and  pervade  the  public  mind  with  dread,  distrust 
and  perturbation. 

FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES. 

The  application  of  these  fundamental  principles  to  the  living 
issues  of  the  day  is  the  first  step  toward  the  assured  peace,  safety 
and  progress  of  our  nation.  Freedom  of  the  press,  of  conscience 
and  of  speech;  equality  before  the  law  of  all  citizens;  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury;  freedom  of  the  person  defended  by  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus;  liberty  of  personal  contract  untrammeled  by 
sumptuary  laws;  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  the  military 
authority;  a  well-disciplined  militia;  the  separation  of  church 
and  State;  economy  in  expenditures;  low  taxes;  that  labor  may 
be  lightly  burdened;  the  prompt  and  sacred  fulfilment  of  public 
and  private  obligations;  fidelity  to  treaties;  peace  and  friendship 
with  all  nations;  entangling  alliances  with  none;  absolute 
acquiescence  in  the  will  of  the  majority,  the  vital  principle  of 
republics — these  are  doctrines  which  Democracy  has  established 
as  proverbs  of  the  nation  and  they  should  be  constantly  invoked, 
preached,  resorted  to  and  enforced. 

CAPITAL  AND  LABOR. 

We  favor  the  enactment  and  administration  of  laws  giving 
labor  and  capital  impartially  their  just  rights.  Capital  and  labor 
ought  not  to  be  enemies.  Each  is  necessary  to  the  other.  Each 
has  its  rights,  but  the  rights  of  labor  are  certainly  no  less 
"vested,"  no  less  "sacred"  and  no  less  "inalienable"  than  the 
rights  of  tsapital. 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  PLATFORM. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GUARANTEES. 

Constitutional  guarantees  are  violated  whenever  any  citizen  is 
denied  the  right  to  labor,  acquire  and  enjoy  property  or  reside 
where  interests  or  inclination  may  determine.  Any  denial  thereof 
by  individuals,  organizations  or  governments  should  be  sum- 
marily rebuked  and  punished. 

We  deny  the  right  of  any  executive  to  disregard  or  suspend  any 
constitutional  privilege  or  limitation.  Obedience  to  the  laws  and 
respect  for  their  requirements  are  alike  the  supreme  duty  of  the 
citizen  and  the  official. 

The  military  should  be  used  only  to  support  and  maintain  the 
law.  We  unqualifiedly  condemn  its  employment  for  the  summary 
banishment  of  citizens  without  trial  or  for  the  control  of  elections. 

We  approve  the  measure  which  passed  the  United  States  Senate 
in  1896,  but  which  a  Republican  Congress  has  ever  since  refused 
to  enact,  relating  to  contempts  in  Federal  Courts  and  providing 
for  trial  by  jury  in  cases  of  indirect  contempt. 

WATERWAYS. 

We  favor  liberal  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  water- 
ways of  the  country.  When  any  waterway  like  the  Mississippi 
River  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand  special  aid  of  the 
Government,  such  aid  should  be  extended  with  a  definite  plan  of 
continuous  work  until  permanent  improvement  is  secured. 

We  oppose  the  Republican  policy  of  starving  home  development 
in  order  to  feed  the  greed  for  conquest  and  the  appetite  for 
national  "prestige"  and  display  of  strength. 

ECONOMY  OF  ADMINISTRATION. 

Large  reductions  can  easily  be  made  in  the  annual  expenditures 
of  the  Government  without  impairing  the  efficiency  of  any  branch 
of  the  public  service,  and  we  shall  insist  upon  the  strictest 
economy  and  frugality  compatible  with  vigorous  and  efficient 
civil,  military  and  naval  administration  as  a  right  of  the  people 
too  clear  to  be  denied  or  withheld. 

We  favor  honesty  in  the  public  service,  the  enforcement  of 
honesty  in  the  public  service,  and  to  that  end  a  thorough  legisla- 
tive investigation  of  those  executive  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment already  known  to  teem  with  corruption,  as  well  as  other 
departments  suspected  of  harboring  corruption,  and  the  punish- 
ment of  ascertained  corruptionists,  without  fear  or  favor  ori 
regard  to  persons.  The  persistent  and  deliberate  refusal  of  botht 
the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  to  permit  suchS 
investigation  to  be  made  demonstrates  that  only  by  a  change  ina 
the  executive  and  in  the  legislative  departments  can  complete* 
exposures,  punishment  and  correction  be  obtained. 

FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  CONTRACTS  WITH  TRUSTS.   ' 

We  condemn  the  action  of  the  Republican  party  in  Congress  in 
refusing  to  prohibit  an  executive  department  from  entering  into; 
contracts   with   convicted   trusts   or   unlawful   combinations   iai 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  PLATFORM. 


restraint  of  interstate  trade.  We  believe  that  one  of  the  best 
methods  of  procuring  economy  and  honesty  in  the  public  service 
is  to  have  public  officials,  from  the  occupant  of  the  White  House 
down  to  the  lowest  of  them,  return  as  nearly  as  may  be  to  Jeffer- 
sonian  simplicity  of  living. 

EXECUTIVE  USURPATION. 

We  favor  the  nomination  and  election  of  a  President  imbued 
with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  who  will  set  his  face 
sternly  against  executive  usurpation  of  legislative  and  judicial 
functions,  whether  that  usurpation  be  veiled  under  the  guise  of 
executive  construction  of  existing  laws,  or  whether  it  take  refuge 
in  the  tyrant's  pleas  of  necessity  or  superior  wisdom. 

IMPERIALISM. 

We  favor  the  preservation,  so  far  as  we  can,  of  an  open  door 
for  the  world's  commerce  in  the  Orient  without  any  unnecessary 
entanglement  in  Oriental  and  European  affairs,  and  without 
arbitrary,  unlimited,  irresponsible  and  absolute  government 
anywhere  within  our  jurisdiction.  We  oppose,  as  fervently  as 
did  George  Washington  himself,  an  indefinite,  irresponsible, 
discretionary  and  vague  absolutism  and  a  policy  of  colonial 
exploitation,  no  matter  where  or  by  whom  invoked  or  exercised; 
we  believe  with  Thomas  Jefferson  and  John  Adams  that  no 
government  has  a  right  to  make  one  set  of  laws  for  those  "at 
home"  and  another  and  a  different  set  of  laws,  absolute  in  their 
character,  for  those  "in  the  colonies."  All  men  under  the 
American  flag  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  institutions 
whose  emblem  the  flag  is;  if  they  are  inherently  unfit  for  those 
institutions  then  they  are  inherently  unfit  to  be  members  of  the 
American  body  politic.  Wherever  there  may  exist  a  people 
incapable  of  being  governed  under  American  laws,  in  consonance 
with  the  American  Constitution,  the  territory  of  that  people 
ought  not  to  be  part  of  the  American  domain. 

We  insist  that  we  ought  to  do  for  the  Filipinos  what  we  have 
already  done  for  the  Cubans,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  make  that 
promise  now,  and  upon  suitable  guarantees  of  protection  to  citi- 
zens of  our  own  and  other  countries  resident  there  at  the  time 
of  our  withdrawal,  set  the  Filipino  people  upon  their  feet,  free 
and  independent,  to  work  out  their  own  destiny.  The  endeavor 
of  the  Secretary  of  War,  by  pledging  the  Government's  indorse- 
ment for  "promoters"  in  the  Philippine  Islands,  to  make  the 
United  States  a  partner  in  speculative  legislation  of  the  archi- 
pelago, which  was  only  temporarily  held  up  by  the  opposition  of 
the  Democratic  Senators  iA  the  last  session,  will,  if  successful, 
lead  to  entanglements  from  which  it  will  be  difficult  to  escape. 

THE  TARIFF. 

The  Democratic  party  has  been,  and  will  continue  to  be,  the 
consistent  opponent  of  that  class  of  tariff  legislation  by  which 
certain  interests  have  been  permitted,  through  Congressional 
favor,  to  draw  a  heavy  tribute  from  the  American  people.    This 


6  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  PLATFORM. 

monstrous  perversion  of  those  equal  opportunities  which  our 
political  institutions  were  established  to  secure  has  caused  what 
may  once  have  been  infant  industries  to  become  the  greatest 
combinations  of  capital  that  the  world  has  ever  known.  These 
especial  favorites  of  the  Government  have,  through  trust  methods, 
been  converted  into  monopolies,  thus  bringing  to  an  end  domestic 
competition,  which  was  the  only  alleged  check  upon  the  extrava- 
gant profits  made  possible  by  the  protective  system.  These 
industrial  combinations,  by  the  financial  assistance  they  can  give, 
now  control  the  policy  of  the  Republican  party. 

We  denounce  protection  as  a  robbery  of  the  many  to  enrich 
the  few,  and  we  favor  a  tariff  limited  to  the  needs  of  the  Govern- 
ment, economically  administered,  and  so  levied  as  not  to  discrimi- 
nate against  any  industry,  class  or  section,  to  the  end  that  the 
burdens  of  taxation  shall  be  distributed  as  equally  as  possible. 

We  favor  a  revision  and  a  gradual  reduction  of  the  tariff  by 
the  friends  of  the  masses  for  the  commonwealth,  and  not  by  the 
friends  of  its  abuses,  its  extortions  and  its  discriminations,  keep- 
ing in  view  the  ultimate  ends  of  "equality  of  burdens  and  equality 
of  opportunities,"  and  the  constitutional  purpose  of  raising  a 
revenue  by  taxation,  to  wit,  the  support  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  all  its  integrity  and  virility,  but  in  simplicity. 

TRUSTS  AND  UNLAWFUL  COMBINATIONS. 

We  recognize  that  the  gigantic  trusts  and  combinations 
designed  to  enable  capital  to  secure  more  than  its  just  share  of 
the  joint  products  of  capital  and  labor,  and  which  have  been 
fostered  and  promoted  under  Republican  rule,  are  a  menace  to 
beneficial  competition  and  an  obstacle  to  permanent  business 
prosperity.    A  private  monopoly  is  indefensible  and  intolerable. 

Individual  equality  of  opportunity  and  free  competition  are 
essential  to  a  healthy  and  permanent  commercial  prosperity,  and 
any  trust  or  monopoly  tending  to  destroy  these  by  controlling 
production,  restricting  competition  or  fixing  prices,  should  be 
prohibited  and  punished  by  law.  We  especially  denounce  rebates 
and  discrimination  by  transportation  companies  as  the  most 
potent  agency  in  promoting  and  strengthening  these  unlawful 
conspiracies  against  trade. 

We  demand  an  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission,  to  the  end  that  the  traveling  public  and 
shippers  of  this  Government  may  have  prompt  and  adequate 
relief  from  the  abuses  to  which  they  are  subjected  in  the  matter 
of  transportation.  We  demand  a  strict  enforcement  of  existing 
civil  and  criminal  statutes  against  all  such  trusts,  combinations 
and  monopolies;  and  we  demand  the  enactment  of  such  further 
legislation  as  may  be  necessary  to  effectually  suppress  them. 

Any  trust  or  unlawful  combination  engaged  in  interstate  com- 
merce which  is  monopolizing  any  branch  of  business  or  produc- 
tion should  not  be  permitted  to  transact  business  outside  of  the 
State  of  its  origin.  Whenever  it  shall  be  established  in  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction  that  such  monopolization  exists, 
such  prohibition  should  be  enforced  through  comprehensive  lawg 
to  be  enacted  on  the  subject, 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  PLATFORM. 


RECLAMATION  OF  ARID  LANDS  AND  DOMESTIC 
DEVELOPMENT. 

We  congratulate  our  Western  citizens  upon  the  passage  of  the 
law  known  as  the  Newlands  Irrigation  Act  for  the  irrigation  and 
reclamation  of  the  arid  lands  of  the  West — a  measure  framed  by 
a  Democrat,  passed  in  the  Senate  by  a  non-partisan  vote,  and 
passed  in  the  House  against  the  opposition  of  almost  all  Repub- 
lican leaders  by  a  vote  the  majority  of  which  was  Democratic. 
We  call  attention  to  this  great  Democratic  measure,  broad  and 
comprehensive  as  it  is,  working  automatically  throughout  all 
time  without  further  action  of  Congress,  until  the  reclamation 
of  all  the  lands  in  the  arid  West  capable  of  reclamation  is  accom- 
plished, reserving  the  lands  reclaimed  for  home  seekers  in  small 
tracts,  and  rigidly  guarding  against  land  monopoly,  as  an 
evidence  of  the  policy  of  domestic  development  contemplated  by 
the  Democratic  party,  should  it  be  placed  in  power. 

ISTHMIAN   CANAL. 

The  Democracy  when  intrusted  with  power  will  construct  the 
Panama  Canal  speedily,  honestly  and  economically,  thereby 
giving  to  our  people  what  Democrats  have  always  contended  for — 
a  great  interoceanic  canal,  furnishing  shorter  and  cheaper  lines 
of  transportation  and  broader  and  less  trammeled  trade  relations 
with  the  other  peoples  of  the  world. 

AMERICAN   CITIZENSHIP. 

We  pledge  ourselves  to  insist  upon  the  just  and  lawful  protec- 
tion of  our  citizens  at  home  and  abroad,  and  to  use  all  proper 
measures  to  secure  for  them,  whether  native-born  or  naturalized, 
and  without  distinction  of  race  or  creed,  the  equal  protection  of 
laws  and  the  enjoyment  of  all  rights  and  privileges  open  to  them 
under  the  covenants  of  our  treaties  of  friendship  and  commerce; 
and  if  under  existing  treaties  the  right  of  travel  and  sojourn  is 
denied  to  American  citizens,  or  recognition  is  withheld  from 
American  passports  by  any  countries  on  the  ground  of  race  or 
creed,  we  favor  the  beginning  of  negotiations  with  the  govern- 
ments of  such  countries  to  secure  by  new  treaties  the  removal  of 
these  unjust  discriminations.  We  demand  that  all  over  the  world 
a  duly  authenticated  passport  issued  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  an  American  citizen  shall  be  proof  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  an  American  citizen  and  shall  entitle  him  to  the  treat- 
ment due  him  as  such. 

ELECTION  OF  SENATORS  BY  THE  PEOPLE. 

We  favor  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  the  direct 
vote  of  the  people. 

STATEHOOD  FOR  TERRITORIES. 

We  favor  the  admission  of  the  territory  of  Oklahoma  and  the 
Indian  Territory.  We  also  favor  the  immediate  admission  of 
Arizona  and  New  Mexico  as  separate  States,  and  a  territorial 
government  for  Alaska  and  Porto  Rico. 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  PLATFORM. 


We  hold  that  the  oflScials  appointed  to  administer  the  govern- 
ment of  any  territory,  as  well  as  with  the  district  of  Alaska, 
should  be  bona  fide  residents  at  the  time  of  their  appointment  of 
the  territory  or  district  in  which  their  duties  are  to  be  performed. 

CONDEMNATION   OF  POLYGAMY. 

We  demand  the  extermination  of  polygamy  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  and  the  complete  separation  of  church 
and  State  in  political  affairs. 

MERCHANT  MARINE. 

We  denounce  the  ship  subsidy  bill  recently  passed  by  the 
United  States  Senate  as  an  iniquitous  appropriation  of  public 
funds  for  private  purposes  and  a  wasteful,  illogical  and  useless 
attempt  to  overcome  by  subsidy  the  obstructions  raised  by  Repub- 
lican legislation  to  the  growth  and  development  of  American 
commerce  on  the  sea. 

We  favor  the  upbuilding  of  a  merchant  marine  without  new  or 
additional  burdens  upon  the  people  and  without  bounties  from 
the  public  treasury. 

RECIPROCITY. 

We  favor  liberal  trade  arrangements  with  Canada,  and  with 
peoples  of  other  countries,  where  these  can  be  entered  into 
with  benefit  to  AmeWcan  agriculture,  manufactures,  mining  or 
commerce. 

MONROE   DOCTRINE. 

We  favor  the  maintenance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  its  full 
integrity. 

ARMY. 

We  favor  the  reduction  of  the  army  and  of  army  expenditure 
to  the  point  historically  demonstrated  to  be  safe  and  suflQcient. 

PENSIONS  AND  OUR   SOLDIERS  AND  SAILORS. 

The  Democracy  would  secure  to  the  surviving  soldiers  and 
sailors  and  their  dependents  generous  pensions,  not  by  an 
arbitrary  executive  order,  but  by  legislation  which  we  grateful 
people  stand  ready  to  enact.  Our  soldiers  and  sailors  who  defend 
with  their  lives  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  have  a  sacred 
interest  in  their  just  administration.  They  must  therefore  share 
with  us  the  humiliation  with  which  we  have  witnessed  the  exalta- 
tion of  court  favorites,  without  distinguished  service,  over  the 
scarred  heroes  of  many  battles;  or  aggrandized  by  legislative 
appropriations  out  of  the  treasuries  of  a  prostrate  people,  in 
violation  of  act  of  Congress',  which  fixes  the  compensation  and 
allowances  of  the  military  officers. 

CIVIL  SERVICE. 

The  Democratic  party  stands  committed  to  the  principles  of 
civil  service  reform,  and  we  demand  their  honest,  just  and 
impartial  enforcement.    We  denounce  the  Republican  party  for 


DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  PLATFORM.  9 

its  continuous  and  sinister  encroachments  upon  tlie  spirit  and 
operation  of  civil-service  rules,  whereby  it  has  arbitrarily- 
dispensed  with  examinations  for  office  in  the  interests  of  favorites 
and  employed  all  manner  of  devices  to  overreach  and  set  aside 
the  principles  upon  which  the  civil  service  was  established. 

SCHOOLS  AND  RACE  QUESTIONS. 

The  race  question  has  brought  countless  woes  to  this  country. 
The  calm  wisdom  of  the  American  people  should  see  to  it  that 
it  brings  no  more.  To  revive  the  dead  and  hateful  race  and 
sectional  animosities  in  any  part  of  our  common  country  means 
confusion,  distraction  of  business  and  the  reopening  of  wounds 
nov/  happily  healed.  North,  South,  East  and  "West,  have  but 
recently  stood  together  in  line  of  battle  from  the  walls  of  Peking 
to  the  hills  of  Santiago,  and  as  sharers  of  a  common  glory  and 
a  common  destiny  we  should  share  fraternally  the  common 
burdens.  We,  therefore,  deprecate  and  condemn  the  bourbon- 
like, selfish  and  narrow  spirit  of  the  recent  Republican  conven- 
tion at  Chicago,  which  sought  to  kindle  anew  the  embers  of 
racial  and  sectional  strife,  and  we  appeal  from  it  to  the  sober 
common  sense  and  patriotic  spirit  of  the  American  people. 

THE   REPUBLICAN  ADMINISTRATION. 

The  existing  Republican  administration  has  been  spasmodic, 
erratic,  sensational,  spectacular  and  arbitrary.  It  has  made 
itself  a  satire  upon  the  Congress,  the  courts  and  upon  the  settled 
practices  and  usages  of  national  and  international  law. 

It  summoned  the  Congress  into  hasty  and  futile  extra  session, 
and  virtually  adjourned  it,  leaving  behind  in  its  fiight  from 
Washington  uncalled  calendars  and  unaccomplished  tasks. 

It  made  war,  which  is  the  sole  power  of  Congress,  without  its 
authority,  thereby  usurping  one  of  its  fundamental  prerogatives. 
It  violated  a  plain  statute  of  the  United  States  as  well  as  plain 
treaty  obligations,  international  usages  and  constitutional  law; 
and  has  done  so  under  pretence  of  executing  a  great  public  policy, 
which  could  have  been  more  easily  effected  lawfully,  constitu- 
tionally and  with  honor. 

It  forced  strained  and  unnatural  constructions  upon  statutes, 
usurping  judicial  interpretation  and  substituting  Congressional 
enactment  decree. 

It  withdrew  from  Congress  their  customary  duties  of  investi- 
gation which  have  heretofore  made  the  representatives  of  the 
people  and  the  States  the  terror  of  evildoers. 

It  conducted  a  secretive  investigation  of  its  own  and  boasted 
of  a  few  sample  convicts,  while  it  threw  a  broad  coverlet  over  the 
bureaus  which  had  been  their  chosen  field  of  operative  abuses, 
and  kept  in  power  the  superior  officers  under  whose  administra- 
tion the  crimes  had  been  committed. 

It  ordered  assault  upon  some  monopolies,  but,  paralyzed  by  its 
first  victory,  it  fiung  out  the  fiag  of  truce  and  cried  out  that,  it 
would  not  "run  amuck"— leaving  its  future  purposes  beclouded 
by  its  vacillations. 


10  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  DEMOCRACY. 

APPEAL  TO  THE  COUNTRY. 

Conducting  the  campaign  upon  this  declaration  of  our  prin- 
ciples and  purposes,  we  invoke  for  our  candidates  the  support, 
not  only  of  our  great  and  time-honored  organization,  but  also  the 
active  assistance  of  all  of  our  fellow-citizens  who,  disregarding 
past  differences  upon  questions  no  longer  in  issue,  desire  the 
perpetuation  of  our  Constitutional  Government  as  framed  and 
established  by  the  fathers  of  the  republic. 


FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  DEMOCRACY. 

JEFFERSON'S  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS. 

"About  to  enter,  fellow-citizens,  on  the  exercise  of  duties  which 
comprehend  everything  dear  and  valuable  to  you,  it  is  proper 
that  you  should  understand  what  I  deem  the  essential  principles 
of  our  Government,  and  consequently  those  which  ought  to  shape 
Its  administration.  I  will  compress  them  within  the  narrowest 
compass  they  will  bear,  stating  the  general  principle,  but  not  all 
its  limitations. 

"Equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  men  of  whatever  state  or 
persuasion,  religious  or  political. 

"Peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship  with  all  nations, 
entangling  alliances  with  none. 

"The  support  of  the  State  governments  in  all  their  rights,  as 
the  most  competent  administrations  for  our  domestic  concerns 
and  the  surest  bulwarks  against  anti-republican  tendencies. 

"The  preservation  of  the  General  Government  in  its  whole 
constitutional  vigor,  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  peace  at  home  and 
safety  abroad. 

"A  jealous  care  of  the  rights  of  election  by  the  people — a  mild 
and  safe  corrective  of  abuses  which  are  lopped  by  the  sword  of 
revolution  where  peaceable  remedies  are  unprovided. 

"Absolute  acquiescence  in  the  decision  of  the  majority — the 
vital  principle  of  republics  from  which  there  is  no  appeal  but  to 
force,  the  vital  principle  and  immediate  parent  of  despotism. 

"A  well-disciplined  militia,  our  best  reliance  in  peace,  and  for 
the  first  moments  of  war,  till  the  regulars  may  relieve  them. 

"The  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  the  military  authority. 

"Economy  in  the  public  expense,  that  labor  may  be  lightly 
burdened. 

"The  honest  payment  of  our  debts  and  sacred  preservation  of 
the  public  faith. 

"Encouragement  of  agriculture  and  commerce  as  its  handmaid. 

"The  diffusion  of  information  and  the  arraignment  of  all  abuses 
at  the  bar  of  public  reason. 

"Freedom  of  religion;  freedom  of  the  press;  freedom  of  the 
person  under  the  protection  of  habeas  corpus;  and  trials  by  juries 
ipipartially  selected. 

"These  principles  form  the  bright  constellation  which  has  gone 
before  ub,  and  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of  revolution  and 
retormation.    Tbe  wU4om  of  our  sages  and  the  blood  of  our 


WHY  I  AM  A  DEMOCRAT.  11 

heroes  have  been  devoted  to  the  attainment.  They  should  be 
the  creed  of  our  political  faith — the  text  of  civil  instruction — the 
touchstone  by  which  to  try  the  services  of  those  we  trust;  and 
should  we  wander  from  them  in  moments  of  error  or  alarm,  let 
us  hasten  to  retrace  our  steps  and  regain  the  road  which  leads 
alone  to  peace,  liberty  and  safety." 


WHY  I  AM  A  DEMOCRAT. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  eternal  and  immutable  principles 
of  Democracy  are  necessary  to  a  free  government,  which  vary 
only  in  their  application  and  expression  as  the  needs  and  exigen- 
cies of  our  country  demand. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  Democracy  means  the  rule  of  the 
people;  the  rule  of  the  majority,  freely  and  fairly  expressed. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democracy  of  the  United  States 
endorses  and  has  always  endorsed  the  enduring  Declaration  of 
Independence,  in  which  amongst  other  things  the  fathers  of  the 
Republic  particularly  declared  that: 

The  right  of  petition  is  ours  and  sacred. 

All  men  are  created  equal  *  *  *  with  certain  Inalienable 
Rights,  that  among  these  are  Life,  Liberty  and  the  Pursuit  of 
Happiness. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  stands  for 
"Equal  Rights  to  All  and  Special  Privileges  to  None;"  which  is 
the  natural  corollary  of  the  great  Declaration. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  is  for  the 
preservation  of  all  the  rights  granted  to  the  Federal  government 
by  the  Constitution,  and  for  the  preservation  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  for  the  right  of  the  people  to 
alter  or  change  the  fundamental  law  when  they  deem  it  necessary. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  stands  for  Home/ 
Rule — the  right  of  each  organized  community  to  manage  its  own/ 
local  affairs  as  may  seem  best  to  the  majority  of  its  citizens.  f 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  stands  for  the 
least  taxation,  national,  state  and  local,  that  will  support  the 
Federal,  State  and  local  governments  honestly  and  economically 
administered. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  opposes  and  has 
always  opposed  the  centralization  of  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
Federal  government,  other  than  those  powers  granted  by  the 
Constitution. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because,  the  Democratic  party  is  broad  enough 
for  all  men  to  enlist  under  its  banner,  who  believe  in  and  endorse 
its  fundamental  principles,  and  yet  catholic  enough  to  shelter 
with  its  everlasting  wings  the  rich  and  powerful  and  the  poor 
and  needy,  where  both  labor  and  capital  and  all  conditions  of 
men,  can  work  out  their  own  salvation  with  absolute  equity. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  stands  for  the 
equal  right  of  every  citizen  in  his  person  and  property  and  in 
their  management  to  achieve  what  his  own  efforts  entitle  him  to, 


12  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT,  1789. 

without  anyone  to  molest  or  make  afraid,  if  he  does  not  commit 
aggressions  upon  the  equal  rights  of  another,  and  this  is  all  from 
which  he  ought  by  law  to  be  restrained. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  has  always 
opposed  and  is  today  fighting  monopolies  and  trusts  and  the 
moneyed  oligarchy,  even  as  it  fought  and  vanquished  the  political 
oligarchy  under  Jefferson  and  the  moneyed  oligarchy  under 
Jackson.  And  because  I  believe  it  is  the  only  party  honestly 
fighting  the  UNLAWFUL  COMBINATIONS  AND  CORPORA- 
TIONS— made  possible  by  law,  entrenched  behind  a  prohibitive 
tariff,  buttressed  by  subsidies  and  fostered  by  special  rates  and 
rebates,  plundering  the  people  with  the  one  hand,  while  with  the 
other  they  reach  for  foreign  conquest  and  sell  their  product 
cheaper  abroad  than  they  sell  it  to  our  own  tariff-taxed  people. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party,  in  all  its 
enviable  history  since  the  foundation  of  the  Republic,  has  always 
been  the  bulwark  of  the  people  against  special  privilege  and  the 
defender  of  the  many  against  the  power  of  money  in  the  hands 
of  the  few. 

I  am  a  Democrat  because  the  Democratic  party  is  conservative 
enough  to  hold  fast  to  that  which  is  good  and  radical  enough  to 
push  all  necessary  reforms. 


FIRST  TARIFF  ACT,  1789. 

The  first  tariff  act  passed  by  Congress  was  in  April,  1789.  It 
was  approved  by  President  Washington.  It  took  effect  July  4, 
1789,  and  was  entitled: 

"An  Act  for  Laying  the  Duty  on  Goods,  Wares  and  Merchandise" 
and  began  with  this  preamble : 

Whereas,  It  is  necessary  for  the  support  of  Government,  for  the  dis- 
charge of  the  debts  of  the  United  States  and  the  encouragement  and 
protection  of  manufactures,  that  duty  be  paid  on  goods,  wares  and 
merchandise  imported. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.: 

That  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  August  next  ensuing  the  sev- 
eral duties  hereinafter  mentioned  shall  be  laid  on  the  following  goods, 
^ wares,  and  merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States  from  any 
foreign  port  or  place,  that  is  to  say: 

Because  of  this  preamble  the  Republicans  refer  to  this  act  with 
unremitting  joy.  The  Republican  Campaign  Book  of  1896  con- 
tains the  following: 

The  first  revenue  la^y  passed  by  the  United  States  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  was  one  prepared  under  a  resolution 
of  Mr.  Madison.  It  passed  the  House  May  14,  and. the  Senate 
June  12;  was  sent  to  a  conference,  passed  both  Houses,  and  was 
approved  by  President  Washington  and  became  a  law  July  4, 
1789.  The  preamble  of  this  law  recited:  "Whereas  it  is  neces- 
sary for  the  support  of  the  Government  and  the  encouragement 
and  protection  of  manufactures,"  etc.  This  act  provided  for  both 
specific  and  ad  valorem  duties.  Among  the  former  were:  Boots, 
50  cents  per  pair;  tallow  candles,  2  cents  a  pound;  coal,  2  cents 
per  bushel,  etc.  James  Madison,  who  has  been  called  the  "father 
of  the  Constitution,"  was  also  the  legislative  "father  of  protectiou" 
to  American  manufactures. 


FIRST  TARIFF  ACT,  1789.  18 

Here  is  the  Act  in  question,   fixed  by  the  "fathers"  for  the 
"protection  of  manufactures" — "infants"  then,  as  they  are  in  1906: 

FIRST  TARIFF  ACT  TOOK    EFFECT  JULY  4,  1789. 

Articles.  U.  S.  Act,  April,  1789 

Wines  and  liquors — 

Madeira  wine,  gallon 18c 

Other  wines,  gallon 10c 

Beer,  ale,  porter,  gallon 5c 

Ditto,  in  bottles,  dozen 20c 

Jamaica  rum,  gallon 10c 

Other  rum,  gallon 8c 

Distilled  spirits,  gallon 8  to  10c 

Brown  sugar,  pound Ic 

Loaf  sugar,  pound 3c 

Molasses,  gallon 2i/^c 

Coffee,  pound 2i^c 

Bohea  tea,  pound 6  to     8c 

Other  teas,  pound 10  to  16c 

Salt,  bushel 10c 

Gocoa,  pound Ic 

Chocolate,  pound 5c 

Snuffs,  pound 10c 

Manufactured  tobacco,  pound 6c 

Earthen  and  China  ware 10% 

Glassware 10% 

Looking  glasses 10% 

Window  glass 10% 

Soap,  pound 2c 

Beef,  pound 5% 

Pork,  pound 5% 

Nails  and  spikes,  pound Ic 

Cordage  and  cables,  cwt , 75c 

Twine,  cwt 90c 

Boots,  pair 50c 

Shoes,  of  leather,  pair 7c 

Shoes,  of  stuff,  pair 5% 

Shoes,  of  silk,  pair 10c 

Four-wheeled  carriages,  each 15% 

Two-wheeled  carriages,  each 15% 

Harness  and  bridles 7%% 

Scythes,  dozen 5% 

Iron  shovels,  dozen .  5% 

Hoes,  dozen 5% 

Axes,  dozen 5% 

Anchors 7%% 

Bar  iron,  cwt 7%% 

Hemp,  cwt 60c 

Iron  pots  and  kettles,  cwt 7%% 

Iron  stoves,  cwt 7%%   ' 

Iron  castings,  cwt 7^/^% 

Iron  hollowware,  cwt 7%% 

Tools 5^^ 

Candles,  pound 2c 

Butter 5% 

Cheese 4c 

Linseed  oil,  gallon 5% 

Coal,  bushel 2c 

Miscellaneous  manufactures  of  metals 5% 

Wrought  gold 5% 

Wrought  silver 5% 

Brass Free 

Copper 5% 

lead Free 

"'mr  ■•; Free 


14  FIR8T  TARIFF  ACT,  1789. 

FIRST  TARIFF  ACT  TOOK  EFFECT  JULY  4,  1789— Continued. 

Articles.  U.  S.  Act,  April,  1789 

Tinplate 7y2% 

Sheeps'  wool Free 

Cotton  wool Free 

Cloths 5% 

Ready-made  clothing 7l^% 

Beaver  hats,  each 7%% 

Castor  hats,  each 7%% 

Felt  hats,  each 71/2% 

Spelling  books  and  primers 5% 

Novels 5% 

Paperhangings 7l^% 

Whips 7y2% 

Canes 71/2% 

Household  furniture. 5% 

Wool  and  cotton  cards,  per  dozen 50c. 

Leather,  pound 7%% 

Leather  manufactures 7%% 

Horn  combs 5% 

Playing  cards,  dozen  packs $L20 

The  Congress  wWcli  passed  this  act  met  April  6,  1789,  and  two 
days  thereafter  the  House,  in  the  committee  of  the  whole  on  the 
state  of  the  Union,  took  up  the  subject  of  the  tariff,  introduced  by 
James  Madison,  who,  in  part,  said: 

"I  take  the  liberty,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  this  early  stage  of  the  busi- 
ness, to  introduce  to  the  committee  a  subject  which  appears  to  me  to 
be  of  the  greatest  magnitude;  a  subject,  sir,  that  requires  our  first  at- 
tention and  our  united  exertions.  *  *  *  The  deficiency  in  our 
Treasury  has  been  too  notorious  to  make  it  necessary  for  me  to  animad- 
vert upon  that  subject.  Let  us  content  ourselves  with  endeavoring  to 
remedy  the  evil.  To  do  this  a  national  revenue  must  be  obtained; 
but  the  system  must  be  such  a  one  that,  while  it  secures  the  object  of 
revenue,  it  shall  not  he  oppressive  to  our  constituents.  Happy  it  is 
for  us  that  such  a  system  is  within  our  power,  for  I  apprehend  that 
both  these  objects  may  be  obtained  from  an  impost  on  articles  im- 
ported into  the  United  States. 

"In  pursuing  this  measure,  I  know  that  two  points  occur  for  our 
consideration.  The  first  respects  the  general  regulation  of  commerce, 
which,  in  my  opinion,  ought  to  be  as  free  as  the  policy  of  nations 
will  admit.  The  second  relates  to  revenue  alone,  and  this  is  the  point 
I  mean  more  particularly  to  bring  into  the  view  of  the  committee. 
*  *  *  The  proposition  made  on  this  subject  by  Congress  in  1783, 
having  received  generally  the  approbation  of  the  several  States  of  the 
Union  in  some  form  or  other,  seems  well  calculated  to  become  the 
basis  of  the  temporary  system  which  I  wish  the  committee  to  adopt." 


THE  DINGLEY  TARIFF. 


15 


THE  DINGLEY  TARIFF. 


Articles. 

Specific  rates  of  duty. 

1! 

CO 

n 

Computed  aver- 
age-ad  valorem 
rates  of  duty. 
(Fiscal  year 

Percent. 

Per  Cent. 

Wines  and  liquors— 

Mndptra  wine     Gal 

Still  wines . .  • 

49  66 

Champagne      and     other 
snarklinc 

53.76 

Beer,  ale,  porter '* 

In  bottles    or    jugs,    per 
gallon,  40  cents 

42.62 

Ditto,  in  bottles doz. 

Jamaica  rum gal. 

In    other    coverings,   per 
gallon,  20  cents 

>  Per  gallon,  $2.25 



69.37 
125.71 

Distilled  Roirits " 

Sugar  under  No.  16  D.  S.  in 
color,   per   pound    from 
.95  ct.  to  1.825  cts.,  accord- 

Tli*nwn  QiiD'a'p Ih. 

66.65 

T^opf  sne^fi'r '* 

Sugar  above  No.  16  D.  S. 
(refined)  per  pound,  1.95 
cents      -•  ..... 

55  88 

Molasses gal. 

Coffee lb. 

Boheatea " 

Per  gallon,  3  and  6  cents. . . 
PrgQ      

20 

19.31 

]Pree 

jTf  ee 

Salt     bu. 

(Per  100  lbs.  in  bags  or 
-<     sacks,  12  cents 

33.32 

1  Per  100  lbs  in  bulk,  8  cents 

83.16 

flnooft                                    -     ...      11^ 

16.70 

nVirkr>r»lflf.A                                     .      *' 

26.37 

Snuffs " 

Mfd.  tobacco " 

100.72 

Per  pound,   55  cents  (not 
including     cigars,     che- 
roots and  cicarettes)  .... 

100.51 

"RttTf Vipn  pnfl  nliinAWfiTft 



68.96 

Glassware 

57  33 

r  Mirrors    not    exceeding 

■     144  square  inches 

"^  Looking-glass  plates  ex- 

45 

67.80 

WiTifln'w  clnssfis     

63.91 

Soap lb. 

Rpiftf                                                 '* 

27.11 

T*pr  nnmirl    2  rifliif  s 

20  44 

Pork " 

14.65 

9.51 

Cordage  and  cables owt. 

Twine " 

16.95 

44.56 

Boots pair 

Shnp«i  of  leather       " 

25 
25 
50 

60 
60 
45 
35 
45 
45 
45 
45 
45 

Cotton 

<  Wool,     per     pound,     44 
cents  and 

Stuff " 

»»       gilk " 

4-wheeled  carriages  ...  each 
2-w heeled  carriages —    " 

Scythes " 

Hoes " 

Axes " 

Anchors 

Per  pound,  1)^  cents 

38.18 

29.09 

jjemn                           « •    " 

12.72 

Iron  pots  and  kettles..    " 

Tron  nf.rtvAH            .    ....    . .      " 

Pfir  1101111(1    8-1  fl  o.fin  t; 

Per  Dound  8-10  cent 

Iron  castings '* 

Iron  hollow- ware *' 

16.82 

Per  nound  2  cents 

36.71 

Tools 

Of  metal 

45 
25 
20 
t»t t •  1  tf  itit 

/  Wax , 

Candles..  lb. 

1  All  other 

Butter 

Per  pound,  6  cents.  

PerpQHRd,6oent8,,,,t.... 

88,95 

Cheese 

♦1.41 

16 


THE  DINGLEY  TARIFF. 


THE  DINGLEY  TARIFF 


-Continued. 


Articles. 


Linseed  oil gal 

Coal bu. 


Miscel.  man'f  r's  of  metals. 

"Wrought  gold 

Wrought  silver 

Brass  (old  brass  free) 

Copper  (unman'fM  free)  — 

Lead 

Tin  (unman'f 'd  free) 

Tin  plate 

Sheep's  wool 

Cotton  (raw  free) 


Cloths , 


Ready-made  clothing. 


Beaver  hats each 

Castor  hats " 

Felt  hats " 

Spell,  books  &  primers 

Novels 

Paper  hangings 

Whips 

Canes 

Household  furniture 

Wool  and  cotton  cards.. pair 
Leather lb. 

Leather  manufactures 

Horn  combs 

Playing  cards doz.  packs 


Specific  rates  of  duty. 


a-5 

oo 


Per  gallon,  30  cents 

f  Bituminous    and    shale 

I     per  ton,  67  cents 

I  Slack   or  culm  of    coal 
t    per  ton,  15  cents 


Manufactures 

Manufactures 

Ore  and  manufactures. 

Manufactures 

Per  pound,  1>^  cents.  -. 


Manufactures 

f  Cotton 

j  Fibre 

iSilk 

LWool 

f  Cotton 

J  Silk 

1  Wool,     per    pound, 
t    cents  and 

[  Fur  hats 

Wool,  U  cts.  per  pound  and 


44 


(Harness).  .. 
(Sticks  for). 
Free 


Gloves 

All  other  n.  e.  s.. 


Per  pack,  10  cents  and. 


Percent. 


60 


'O  as      _. 
-u  "1  O  w 


Per  Cent. 


52.06 
31.59 
10.74 


45.21 
15.75 
82.25 
.45 
63.12 
46.64 
54.26 
38.55 
44.73 
55.20 
100.02 


82.20 
52.26 
81.60 


17.16 
52.58 


150.67 


TARIFF  BATES. 


17 


TARIFF  RATES. 

THE  AVERAGE  RATES  OF  DUTY  FOR  THE  YEAR  ON  THE 

THINGS  ACTUALLY  TAXED. 

Year,  Per  cent. 

1871 43.95 

1872 41.35 

1873 38.07 

1874 38.53 

1875 40.62 

1876 44.74 

1877 42.89 

1878 42.75 

1879 44.87 

1880 43.48 

1881 43.20 

1882 42.66 

1883 42.45 

1884 41.61 

1885 45.86 

1886 45.55 

1887 47.10 

Estim't'd  aver- 
age rate  un- 
der Mills  bill  42.49 

1888 45.63 

1889 45.13 

1890 44.41 

1891 46.28 

1892 48.71 

1893 49.58 

1894 50.06 

1895 41.75 

1896 39.95 

1897 42.17 

1898 48.75 

1899 52.07 

1900 49.24 

1901 49.64 

1902 49.78 

1903 49.03 

1904 48.77 

1905 45.24 


Year. 

Per  cent. 

Year. 

Per  cent. 

1791  .. . 

15.34 

1831  .. 

1832  ... 

47.38 

1792    .. 

11.54 

42.96 

1793  .. 

14.68 

1833  .. 

1834  .. 

38.25 

1794  .. 

17.10 

40.19 

1795  .. 

11.21 

1835  .. 

40.38 

1796  .. 

12.02 

15.60 

1836     .  . 

34.94 

1797    .. 

1837  ... 

29.18 

1798  ... 

19.99 

1838  ... 

41.33 

1799  .. 

19.70 

1839  ... 

31.77 

1800  ... 

17.42 

1840  ... 

34.39 

1801  ... 

16.61 

1841   .. 

34.56 

1802  .. 

30.67 

1842  ... 

.25.81 

1803  .. 

20.52 

1843  ... 

29.19 

1804     .  . 

22.76 

19.19 

1844     .  . 

36  88 

1805  ... 

1845  ... 

34.45 

1806  ... 

21.22 

1846  ... 

33.35 

1807  ... 

20.09 

1847  ... 

28.02 

1808  ... 

37.22 

1848  ... 

26.28 

1809  . . . 

18.80 

1849  ... 

26.11 

1810  ... 

14.07 

1850  ... 

27.14 

.1811  ... 

35.62 

1851   ... 

26.63 

1812  ... 

13.07 

1852  ... 

27.38 

1813  ... 

69.03 

1853  ... 

25.93 

1814  ... 

46.79 

1854  ... 

25.61 

1815  ... 

6.84 

1855  ... 

26.82 

1816  ... 

27.94 

1856  ... 

26.05 

1817  ... 

32.90 

1857  ... 

22.45 

1818  ... 

16.78 

1858  ... 

22.43 

1819  ... 

29.81 

1859  ... 

19.56 

1820  ... 

26.59 

1860  ... 

19.67 

1821  ... 

30.99 

1861  ... 

18.84 

1822  . .  . 

27.13 

1862  ... 

36.20 

1823  . . . 

39.21 

1863  ... 

32.62 

1824  ... 

50.21 

1864  ... 

36.69 

1825  ... 

50.24 

1865  ... 

47.56 

1826  ... 

49.26 

1866  ... 

48.35 

1827  .. . 

53.76 

1867  . . 

1868  ... 

46  67 

1828  ... 

47.59 

48.63 

1829  ... 

54.18 

1869  ..  . 

47.22 

1830  ..  . 

61  69 

1870  ... 

47  08 

THE  HISTORY  OF  TARIFF  CHANGES. 

RATES    OF    DUTY    LEVIED    ON    ARTICLES    OF    NECESSITY 
UNDER  ALL   TARIFFS  SINCE  1791   TO  1883. 


Tariff  Act  of 
the  Year 


1789 

1790-91.  .. 

1792 

1794-5 

1797-1800. 

1804-7-8... 

1813-15.... 

1816-19.... 
1824-26.... 
JO.... 

im. 

^^^^  11841. 

1842 

1846 

1857 

1861 

1867 

1883 


»H 

a> 

P. 

qq' 

•• 

rs 

o  . 

o 

O^ 

1 

11 

« 

o 

free 

5 

3c 

1H 

3c 

'!H 

8c 

\i%. 

3c 

J5 

3c 

17X 

6c 

35 

n.o.p. 

8c 

20 

3c 

25 

3c 

25 

8c 

25 

8c 

24 

3c 

23 

3c 

30 

free 

25 

free 

19 

free 

80 

3c 

35 

free 

85 

08  O 


free 
free 
free 
free 
free 
free 
free 

free 


o 
go 


5 
5 

7>^ 
10 
12>i 
15 
30 
n.o.p. 
25 

15@30|30-33>^ 
15@50  40@45 
0@80  " 
0@78 
0@72 


5@60 

30 

0@24 


*40 
*36 


40 

30 

24 

12c.   a 

lb.  & 
251ict 

50c.  & 
351^ct 

35c.  & 
35@40 


M 

ho 

«^ 

rSP. 

S^ 

6ft 

3 

ii 

36 

ao 

0  S 

-go 

So 

ft 
d 

d 

OS . 

0- 

1^ 

rt  CO 

t— t 

03 

3 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

10 

5 

5 

5 

7X 

5 

5 

Vi^ 

7>^ 

free 

7X 

10 

10 

7^ 

15 

10 

free 

vm 

15 

15 

12>^ 

20 

12^ 

free 

12^ 

15    ,15 

12>^ 

20 

15 

free 

15 

mn 

\ny,. 

'5 

22>^ 

30 

free 

30 

35 

«5 

30 

45 

25 

free 

30 

20 

20 

25 

20 

25 

free 

30 

25 

25 

25 

n    ^* 

.35 

free 

30 

25 

25 

25 

^-^t 

25 

free 

25 

25 

25 

25 

«nS 

24 

free 

24 

24 

24 

24 

.  *  ft 

23 

free 

23 

23 

23 

23 

^..^ 

25 

free 

30 

;^o 

30 

25 

25 

20 

30 

30 

80 

30 

20 

30 

15 

24 

24 

24 

24 

15 

24 

1 

20 

80 

30 

80 

80 

80 

20 

35 

35 

45 

40 

40 

*71 

20 

35 

45 

45 

40 

45 

10 
10 
10 
15 
15 

35 

20 
20 
20 
20 
!>0 
20 
30 
30 
24 


25@40 
25@60 


The  figures  marked  with  a  ♦  are  the  average  rates  collected  on  the  next 
year's  Imports.     All  the  others  are  at  the  rates  embodied  In  the  law. 


18  THE  HISTORY  OF  TARIFF  CHANGES. 

PROTECTIVE  TARIFFS  NOT  TO   BE  "PERPETUAL." 

In  1833  Mr.  Clay  said: 

Now,  give  us  time;  cease  all  fluctuation  and  agitations  for  nine 
years,  and  the  manufacturers  in  every  branch  will  sustain  themselves 
against  foreign  competition. 

In  1840  he  said: 

No  one,  Mr.  President,  in  the  commencement  of  the  protective  policy 
ever  supposed  that  it  was  to  be  perpetual. 

We  hoped  and  believed  that  temporary  protection  extended  to  our 
infant  manufacturers  would  bring  them  up  and  enable  them  to  with- 
stand competition  with  those  of  Europe.  If  the  protective  policy  were 
entirely  to  cease  in  1842  it  would  have  existed  twenty-six  years  from 
1816,  or  eighteen  from  1824,  quite  as  long  as  at  either  of  these  periods 
its  friends  supposed  might  be  necessary. 

In  1842  he  said: 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood,  and  let  me  entreat  that  I  may  not  be 
misrepresented.  I  am  not  advocating  the  revival  of  a  high  protective 
tariff.     I  am  abiding  by  the  principles  of  the  compromise  act. 

But  in  1810  he  had  said: 

But  it  is  important  to  diminish  our  imports,  to  furnish  ourselves 
with  clothing  made  by  our  own  industry,  and  to  cease  to  be  dependent 
for  the  very  coats  we  wear  upon  foreign  and  perhaps  inimical  country. 
The  nation  that  imports  its  clothing  from  abroad  is  but  little  less  de- 
pendent than  if  it  imported  its  bread. 

The  vote  for  the  Act  of  1846  was:  House,  114  to  43;  Senate,  27 
to  27,  Vice-President  Dallas  casting  the  deciding  vote  (28  to  27). 
Mr.  Dallas  in  explaining  his  vote,  in  part  said: 

"During  that  period  ( 'high  duties  on  imports  *  *  for  more  than 
thirty  years')  a  system  of  high  taxation  has  prevailed,  with  fluctua- 
tions of  success  and  failure.  It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  this  exer- 
cise of  the  taxing  power  was  obiginally  intended  to  be  tempoeaby. 

"The  design  was  to  foster  feeble  'infant'  ( his  italics )  manufacturers, 
especially  such  as  webe  essential  to  the  defense  of  the  coun- 

TBY    IN    time    of    WAB. 

"In  this  design,  the  people  have  persevered  until  these  saplings  have 
taken  root;  have  become  vigorous,  expanded  and  powerful,  and  are 
prepared  to  enter,  with  confidence,  the  field  of  fair,  free  and  universal 
competition. 

"The  arrival  of  this  period  of  time  has  been  anxiously  looked  for  by 
a  large  portion  of  our  fellow  citizens,  who  deem  themselves  peculiar 
and  almost  exclusive  suffebees  by  the  policy  of  pbotection. 

"They  have  sometimes,  perhaps,  imprudently,  endeavored  to  an- 
ticipate it. 

"Their  numbers,  at  first  entitled  in  influence,  only  from  their  patriot- 
ism and  intelligence,  have  gone  on,  gradually  increasing  as  the  system 
ripened  to  its  fruit,  and  they  now  constitute  a  decided  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  Union." 


THE  TARIFF  AND  TRV8TS.  19 


THE  TARIFF  AND  TRUSTS. 

The  protective  tariff  has  been  acknowledged  by  one  of  its 
principal  beneficiaries,  Mr.  Havemeyer,  president  of  the  Sugar 
Trust,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Industrial  Commission,  June 
14,  1899,  to  be  the  "mother  of  all  trusts"  and  as  that  statement  is 
pretty  near  the  truth  it  seems  desirable  to  treat  the  tariff  and 
trust  questions  under  one  head. 

DEMOCRATIC  PLATFORMS  ON  TARIFF  AND  TRUSTS. 

The  Democratic  position  on  the  tariff  issue,  as  declared  in  the 
last  national  platform  was: 

"The  Democratic  party  has  been  and  will  continue  to  be  the  con- 
sistent opponent  of  that  class  of  tariff  legislation  by  which  certain 
interests  have  been  permitted  through  Congressional  favor  to  draw 
heavy  tribute  from  the  American  people.  This  monstrous  perversion 
of  those  equal  opportunities  which  our  political  institutions  were  es- 
tablished to  secure,  has  caused  what  may  once  have  been  infant  indus- 
tries to  become  the  greatest  combinations  of  capital  that  the  world 
has  ever  known.  These  especial  favorites  of  the  government  have, 
through  trust  methods,  been  converted  into  monopolies,  thus  bringing 
to  an  end  domestic  competition,  which  was  the  only  alleged  check 
upon  the  extravagant  profits  made  possible  by  the  protective  system. 
These  industrial  combinations  by  the  financial  assistance  they  can 
give,  now  control  the  policy  of  the  Republican  party.  We  denounce 
protection  as  a  robbery  of  the  many  to  enrich  the  few ;  and  we  favor  a 
tariff  limited  to  the  needs  of  the  government,  economically  adminis- 
tered, and  so  levied  as  not  to  discriminate  against  any  industry,  class 
or  section,  to  the  end  that  the  burdens  of  taxation  shall  be  distributed 
as  equally  as  possible. 

"We  favor  a  revision  and  a  gradual  reduction  of  the  tariff  by  the 
friends  of  the  masses  and  for  the  common  weal,  and  not  by  the  friends 
of  its  abuses,  its  extortions  and  its  discriminations;  keeping  in  view 
the  ultimate  ends  of  'equality  of  burdens  and  equality  of  opportunities* 
and  the  constitutional  purposes  of  raising  a  revenue  by  taxation — to 
wit,  the  support  of  the  Federal  Government  in  all  its  integrity  and 
virility,  but  in  simplicity." 

The  national  platform  of  1900  declared  that: 

"Tariff  laws  should  be  amended  by  putting  the  products  of  trusts 
upon  the  free  list  to  prevent  monopoly  under  the  plea  of  protection." 
*  «  *  «^g  condemn  the  Dingley  tariff  law  as  a  trust-breeding 
measure,  skilfully  devised  to  give  to  the  few  favors  which  they  do  not 
deserve,  and  to  place  upon  the  many  burdens  which  they  should 
not  bear." 

There  is  no  doubt  therefore  where  the  Democratic  party  stands 
on  the  tariff  and  the  trusts.  The  Republican  position  is  to  "stand 
pat"' and  "continue  to  stand  pat,"  or  as  Speaker  Cannon  puts  it, 
"stand  pat  and  pass  the  hat." 

REPUBLICAN  PLATFORM  ON  TARIFF  AND  TRUSTS. 

The  last  Republican  national  platform  declared: 

"We  insist  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  principles  of  protection, 
and  therefore  rates  of  duty  should  be  readjusted  only  when  conditions 
have  so  changed  that  the  public  interest  demands  their  alteration; 
but  this  work  cannot  be  safely  committed  to  any  other  hands  than 
those  of  the  Republican  party.  To  intrust  it  to  the  Democratic  party 
is  to  invite  disaster," 


20  TARIFF  HISTORY. 


On  the  trusts  the  Republican  platform  declared: 

"Combinations  of  capital  and  of  labor  are  the  results  of  the  eco- 
nomic movement  of  the  age,  but  neither  must  be  permitted  to  in- 
fringe upon  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  people.  Such  combi- 
nations, when  lawfully  formed  for  lawful  purposes,  are  alike  en- 
titled to  the  protection  of  the  laws,  but  both  are  subject  to  the  laws, 
and  neither  can  be  permitted  to  break  them." 

Therefore: 

1.  The  issue  on  the  tariif  question  is  not  between  theoretical  pro- 
tection and  theoretical  free  trade;  it  is  between  exaggerated  pro- 
tection producing  monopoly,  and  a  fair  and  just  revision  of  the 
scheaules  in  behalf  of  the  general  welfare;  the  former  is  the  Re- 
publican position,  the  latter  the  Democratic. 


TARIFF  HISTORY. 

DISPROVES   REPUBLICAN   PLATFORM   CONTENTION. 

The  Republican  national  platform  claims  that: 

"A  Democratic  tariff  has  always  been  followed  by  business  ad- 
versity, a  Republican  tariff  by  business  prosperity." 

That  hoary  Republican  misstatement  has  been  reiterated  in 
every  campaign  since  the  war,  but  it  remained  for  Senator  Lodge 
to  embalm  it  in  a  Republican  platform,  and  to  have  it  approved 
by  a  President  of  the  United  States. 

HISTORICAL  FACTS. 

Economic  crises  with  the  accompanying  tariff  in  difTerent 
countries  were  as  follows: 

United  States:  England:  France: 

1866  Free  Trade 

1869  Protection 

1873  Protection.         1873  Free  Trade.         1873  Protection. 

1882  Protection. 

1884  Protection 1884-5  Protection. 

1890  Protection.         1890  Free  Trade.         1890  Protection. 
1893  Protection 1893  Protection. 

These  dates  are  taken  from  "Economical  Crises,"  page  137,  by 
Edward  D.  Jones,  professor  of  economics.  University  of  Wisconsin. 

The  table  shows  that  all  the  panics  in  this  country  have 
occurred  under  Republican  auspices  and  with  the  highest  protec- 
tive tariff,  and  in  France  the  same  conditions  prevailed,  whije  in 
free  trade  England  there  has  been  only  one  panic  since  1873,  and 
that  known  as  the  "Baring  panic,"  was  purely  financial. 

That  the  present  "boom"  will  be  followed  by  a  panic  is  only  a 
question  of  time.  The  present  is  a  period  of  great  inflation 
through  the  natural  vast  increase  in  the  output  of  gold,  and  the 
further  artificial  increase  through  legislation.  The  national  bank 
currency  has  been  infiated  10  per  cent,  by  the  act  allowing  the 
banks  to  issue  notes  up  to  the  par  value  of  the  bonds  deposited, 
and  the  large  increase  in  the  number  of  banks  under  the  act 
allowing  national  banks  to  be  organized  with  $25,000  capital.    So 


TARIFF  HISTORY.  21 


that,  whereas  in  1896  the  per  capita  circulation  was  $21.42  in 
1905,  it  had  increased  to  $31.08,  or  nearly  50  per  cent,  more  than 
in  1896,  and  now  exceeds  $32;  thereby  proving  the  Democratic 
contention  of  the  quantitative  theory  of  money,  and  substantiating 
the  demand  made  by  the  Democrats  in  1896,  that  the  currency  of 
the  country  should  be  increased.  It  is  not  the  tariff  therefore, 
which  has  produced  the  present  "boom,"  but  inflation  of  the 
currency  and  record  crops  in  this  country  with  a  shortage  of 
crops  in  other  countries,  and  the  consequent  good  demand  for 
our  products  from  England  and  elsewhere. 

IS   PROTECTION    PANIC   PROOF? 

The  argument  used  by  Senator  Gallinger,  which  was  so  care- 
fully prepared  by  the  paid  officials  of  the  Protective  Tariff  League, 
and  published  as  a  document  in  1904,  under  the  thrilling  caption, 
"Protection  Is  Panic  Proof,"  is  completely  demolished  by  the 
facts  above  presented.  Protection  was  certainly  not  panic  proof 
in  1873.  Where  was  the  God  of  Protection  then?  Perchance, 
like  Baal  of  old,  he  was  on  a  journey,  or,  peradventure,  he  was 
sleeping.  Heaven  knows  that  the  Protectionists  called  upon  Him 
loudly  enough,  just  then;  for  their  plight  was  pitiable. 

Perhaps  Senator  Gallinger,  or  other  protectionist  orators,  may 
show  to  their  own  satisfaction  that  under  the  Democratic  low 
tariff  of  1846-1857  the  country  was  in  a  continual  panic;  but  the 
facts  would  belie  them,  for  that  period  was  one  of  remarkable 
prosperity.  Then,  as  now,  the  gold  output  was  enormously 
increased  by  the  discoveries  in  California  in  1847,  and  circulation 
of  money  per  capita  increased,  from  $6.79  in  1840  to  $15.81  in  1857. 
Immigration  was  on  a  large  scale,  as  it  is  now.  Crops  were  good 
here  and  poor  abroad,  as  now.  In  fact,  the  country  was  so 
flourishing  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  used  to  harp  in 
his  annual  reports  on  "a  new  commercial  era,"  as  Secretary  Shaw 
is  now  doing.  Yet  tariff  rates  at  that  time  averaged  less  than  25 
per  cent.  But  prosperity  was  so  great  and  the  tariff  produced 
so  much  revenue,  that  the  public  debt  was  virtually  extinguished, 
being  reduced  in  1857  to  but  99  cents  per  capita,  whereas  on  June 
30,  1905,  it  was  $11.91,  and  exceeds  that  figure  today.  Hence  the 
tariff  of  1857  was  purposely  passed  to  reduce  and  did  reduce  the 
30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  act  of  1846  to  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
and  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  a  Republican,  was  speaker  with  an  anti- 
Democratic  majority  behind  him.  Of  this  law  Mr.  Blaine  in  his 
"Twenty  Years  in  Congress,"  says: 

TARIFF  1846— MR.   BLAINE. 

Moreover,  the  tariff  of  1846  was  yielding  an  abundant  revenue,  and 
the  business  of  the  country  was  in  a  flourishing  condition  at  the  time 
his  administration  [President  Pierce's]  was  organized.  Money  be- 
came very  abundant  after  the  year  1849;  large  enterprises  were 
undertaken,  speculation  was  prevalent,  and  for  a  considerable  period 
the  prosperity  of  the  country  was  general  and  apparently  genuine. 

TARIFF  1857— RESISTANCE  CEASED  TO    LOW  TARIFF. 

The  principles  embodied  in  the  tariff  of  1856  seemed  for  the  time  to 
be  so  entirely  vindicated  and  approved  that  resistance  to  it  ceased,  not 
only  among  the  people,  but  among  the  protective  economists,  and  even 
among  the  manufacturers,  to  a  large  extent. 


TARIFF  HI8T0RT. 


So  general  was  this  acquiescence  that  in  1856  a  protective  tariff  was 
not  suggested,  or  even  hinted,  by  any  one  of  the  three  parties  which 
presented  Presidential  candidates. 

"By  this  law  (tariff  1857)  the  duties  were  placed  lower  than  they 
had  been  at  any  time  since  the  war  of  1812. 

"The  act  was  well  received  by  the  people,  and  was,  indeed,  con- 
curred in  by  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Republican  party." 

The  convention  (which  nominated  Mr.  Lincoln,  1860)  therefore 
avoided  the  use  of  the  word  "protection,"  and  was  contented  with 
the  moderate  declaration  that  "sound  public  policy"  requires  such 
an  adjustment  of  imports  as  will  encourage  the  development  of  the 
industrial  interest  of  the  whole  country. 

The  conditions  of  that  period  of  prosperity  and  low  tariff  are  so 
well  stated  by  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  May  20,  1904,  that  it 
is  worthy  of  repetition: 

"With  rare  foresight,  Mr.  Blaine,  in  his  'Twenty  Years  of  Con- 
gress,' anticipated  the  Senator  from  New  Hampsnire.  The  pro- 
tectionists, he  says,  held  that  the  boasted  prosperity  under  the  tariff 
of  1846  was  abnormal  in  origin  and  character.  'It  depended  on  a 
series  of  events  exceptional  at  home  and  even  more  exceptional 
abroad — events  which  by  the  doctrine  of  probabilities  would  not  be 
repeated  for  centuries.  The  protectionists  maintain  that  from  1846 
to  1857  the  United  States  would  have  enjoyed  prosperity  under  any 
form  of  tariff,  but  that  the  amount  of  exceptional  conditions  in 
Europe  and  America  came  to  an  end  the  country  was  plunged  head- 
long into  a  disaster  from  which  the  conservative  force  of  a  pro- 
tective tariff  would  in  large  part  have  saved  it,'  But  that  sort 
of  talk  will  not  go  down  with  such  men  as  John  Sharp  Williams. 
They  will  insist  on  knowing  why  the  exceptional  conditions  prior  to 
1857  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  low  tariff  of  1846.  We  all  know  that 
the  poor  crops  in  Europe  and  the  big  crops  in  this  country  in  1897 
were  due  to  protection,  and  why  were  not  the  Irish  potato  famine 
and  the  high  price  of  wheat  in  the  forties  equally  due  to  the  Walker 
tariff? 

"The  Blaine  explanation  of  1846  is  an  edged  tool  for  the  friends 
of  protection.  In  fact,  it  shows  us  very  clearly  Avhat  caused  the 
panic  of  1873.  The  low  tariff  of  1846  was  a  death-dealing  device, 
but  it  took  eleven  years  to  get  in  its  work.  Senator  Gallinger  de- 
clares that  the  Morrill  tariff  of  1861  was  designedly  a  protective 
measure.  The  new  policy  was  in  operation  during  one  of  the  greatest 
periods  of  speculation  in  our  history.  But  in  twelve  years  there  was 
the  worst  collapse  we  had  ever  known.  Certainly,  protection  was 
not  panic  proof  then,  and  how  do  we  know  it  is  going  to  be  panic 
proof  now?  Only  seven  years  (now  nine  years)  have  passed  since 
the  Dingley  law  was  enacted,  whereas  the  experience  of  1857  and  1873 
teaches  that  we  must  wait  eleven  or  twelve  years  to  discover  whether 
a  tariff  is  a  tonic  or  a  poison.  Senator  Gallinger  did  well  to  say 
nothing  about  1873,  but  he  should  have  steered  clear  of  1857  also." 

We  will  now  quote  from  the  very  able  report  of  Special  Com- 
missioner of  Revenue,  David  A.  Wells,  Executive  Document  No. 
16,  House,  Fortieth  Congress,  third  session,  dated  January,  1869, 
first  classifying  our  tariffs  as  follows: 

1816  to  1824,  moderate  protective. 
1824  to  1832,  high  protective. 
1833  to  1842,  lower  compromise. 
1842  to  1848,  higher  protective. 
1846  to  1857,  low  revenue. 
1857  to  1861,  lower  revenue. 

Mr.  Wells  said: 

"Production  of  pig  iron  in  1830,  165,000  tons;  in  1840,  347,000 
tons.   Increase  in  10  years,  UO  per  cent. 


TARIFF  msTORY.  23 


"Production  in  1845,  486,000  tons;  increase  in  5  years,  40  per  cent. 

"Production  in  1850,  564,000  tons;  increase  in  10  years,  62  per  cent. 

"Production  in  1855,  754,000  tons;  increase  in  5  years,  33  per  cent. 

"Production  in  1860,  913,000  tons;  increase  in  10  years,  61  per  cent. 

"It  thus  appears  that  the  great  annual  increase  in  the  production 
of  pig  iron  took  place  prior  to  the  year  1840,  and  for  30  years  was 
remarkably  uniform  at  the  rate  of  10  to  11  per  cent,  per  annum;  and 
that  since  then,  no  matter  what  has  been  the  character  of  the  legis- 
lation, whether  the  tariff  was  low  or  high,  whether  the  condition 
of  the  country  was  one  of  war  or  peace,  the  increase  of  the  production 
has  been  at  the  average  of  about  8  per  cent,  per  annum,  or  more  than 
double  the  ratio  of  the  increase  of  population. 

"Again,  as  another  curious  illustration  of  an  apparent  misconcep- 
tion of  the  effects  of  past  legislation  upon  the  development  of  the 
country,  take  the  following  paragraph  from  the  recent  report  of  a 
congressional  committee : 

"  'No  business  men  of  mature  age  need  be  reminded  of  the  revulsion 
which  followed  in  consequence  of  the  free-trade  system  of  1846 — the 
decline  of  production,  of  immigration,  of  wages,  of  public  or  private 
revenue,  until  the  culmination  of  the  system  in  the  tariff  of  1857, 
with  the  memorable  crisis  of  that  period;  the  general  ruin  of  manu- 
facturers and  merchants;  the  suspended  payment  of  the  banks;  the 
reduction  of  the  Treasury  to  the  verge  of  bankruptcy,  and  the  un- 
paralleled distress  among  the  unemployed  poor.' 

"Now,  with  all  due  deference  to  the  Committee,  the  Commissioner 
would  ask  attention  to  the  following  statistics  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion under  consideration : 

"Increase  in  the  production  of  pig  iron:  In  1840,  347,000  tons;  in 
1845,  486,000;  in  1850,  564,755;  1855,  754,178;  1860,  913,770. 

"Increase  in  the  production  of  Pennsylvania  anthracite  coal:  1842, 
1,108,418  tons;  1846,2,344,005;  1847,2,882,309;  1849,3,217,641;  1855, 
6,486,097;  1860,8,143,938. 

"Increase  in  the  domestic  consumption  of  cotton  north  of  the  Po- 
tomac: 1840,  297,000  bales;  1845,422,000;  1849-50,476,000;  1851-52, 
588,000;  1855,  633,000;  1858-59,  760,000;  1859-60,  792,000. 

"Increase  in  immigration:  1840,  84,000;  1845,  174,000;  1850, 
310,000;  1854,427,000. 

"Increasce  in  public  revenues:  1840,  $19,000,000;  1845,  $29,- 
000,000;  1850,  $52,000,000;  1855,  $74,000,000. 

"Increase  of  national  wealth:  From  1840  to  1850,  80  per  cent.; 
from  1850  to  1860,  126  per  cent.  In  1854  the  6  per  cent,  bonds  of  the 
United  States,  issued  in  1848,  commanded  a  premium  of  21  per  cent. 

"Commercial  tonnage  of  the  United  States:  1840,  2,180,000;  1850, 
3,535,000;  1860,  5,353,000. 

"Exports  and  imports:  In  1840,  $239,000,000;  1845,  $231,000,000; 
1850,  $330,000,000;  1855,  $536,000,000;  1860,  $762,000,000. 

"Increase  in  shipbuilding:  1842,  129,084  tons;  1845,  146,018; 
1850,  272,219;  1855,  583,450. 

"Annual  increase  of  railroad  construction:  1842,  491  miles;  1845, 
256;  1847,  669;  1849,  1,369;  1853,  2,452;  1856,  3,643  miles." 

ANOTHER  REPUBLICAN  STATESMAN. 

Mr.  Garfield  in  the  House,  April  1,  1870  (App.  Globe,  pp.  271-2), 
in  urging  tariff  reform,  in  part,  said: 

FIRST  FURNACE  TO  REDUCE  ORE   ERECTED  IN  1846. 

"I  believe  that  the  first  furnace  in  the  United  States  which  re- 
duced ore  with  raw  bituminous  coal  was  established  in  Mahoning 
County,  Ohio,  in  1846.  From  that  time,  year  by  year,  with  some 
interruption,  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  number  of  furnaces. 
In  the  year  1856,  the  Lake  Superior  ore  was  brought  down  to  the 
Ohio  coal  region,  and  now  there  come  down  the  Northern  Lakes,  as 


24  TARIFF  HISTORY. 


has  been  shown  by  the  gentleman  from  Michigan,  about  500,000  tons 
per  annum  of  Lake  Superior  ore;  and  more  than  one-fourth  of  the 
whole  amount  is  every  year  consumed  in  two  counties  of  my  Con- 
gressional district.'* 

In  the  same  speech,  p.  272,  he  states  that: 

"The  tariff  act  of  1842  was  adopted,  by  which  the  rate  of  duty  was 
raised  and  fixed  at  an  average  of  33  per  cent. 

"In  1845,  the  Free  Trade  Party  having  again  come  into  power,  a 
heavy  reduction  of  the  tariff  was  made  in  1846,  and  the  rate  pushed 
down  to  an  average  of  24 ^^  per  cent." 

He  further  states: 

"That  the  Tariff  Act  of  1847,"  enacted  by  all  political  parties, 
"reduced  the  rate  of  duty  to  24^  per  cent.,  a  lower  rate  than  it  had 
reached  in  40  years.     *     *     * 

"In  the  year  1861  marked  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  tariff,  in 
the  winter  of  1860-61  the  rates  were  again  raised.  From  the  second 
of  March,  1861,  to  the  present  time  (1870)  there  had  been  thirteen 
separate  tariff  acts  and  revolutions,  all  of  which  have  more  or  less 
increased  the  rate  of  duty,  and  it  now  averages  about  47^  per  cent, 
on  dutiable  articles  and  41  per  cent,  on  all  our  imports,  both  dutiable 
and  free." 

REASON   FOR  ABANDONING  THE  VERY  LOW  TARIFF 
OF  1857  AND    RAISING  THE   RATES. 

"That  these  acts  were  made  necessary  iy  the  war  few  will  venture 
to  defiy.  It  is  also  undeniable  that  the  heavy  internal  taxes  imposed 
upon  the  manufacturing  industries  neutralized  the  effect  of  protec- 
tive duties  and  made  an  increase  of  the  tariff  necessary  as  a  measure 
of  compensating  protection. 

"But  as  I  have  already  shown,  the  heaviest  burdens  of  internal  taxes 
have  been  removed  from  manufacturers  and  a  demand  that  some  cor- 
responding reduction  in  the  tariff"  rate  shall  be  made  is  coming  up 
from  all  quarters  of  the  country.  The  signs  are  unmistakable  tnat 
a  strong  reaction  is  setting  in  against  the  prevailing  rates,  and  he 
is  not  a  wise  legislator  who  shuts  his  eyes  to  the  fact  of  the  situation." 

GARFIELD    FOR   ULTIMATE    FREE    TRADE. 

In  concluding  his  speech,  he  quoted  from  a  former  address  in 
this  House  in  1866,  in  which  he  said: 

"I  am  for  a  protection  which  leads  to  ultimate  free  trade.  I  am 
for  that  free  trade  which  can  only  be  achieved  through  a  reasonable 
protection." 

Mr.  Henry  Loomis  Nelson  was  Secretary  to  the  Hon.  John  G. 
Carlisle  while  Speaker  of  the  House.  On  July  4, 1884,  Mr.  Carlisle 
addressed  him  a  letter,  in  part  saying  this: 

"Learning  that  you  have  prepared  and  propose  to  publish  a  volume 
containing  a  condensed  statement  of  the  arguments  in  opposition  to 
the  protective  system  in  favor  of  a  revenue  tariff,  I  desire  to  say,"  etc., 

commending  Mr.  Nelson  for  his  undertaking.  By  far,  his  is  the 
most  complete  presentation  of  the  operations  of  the  low  tariff  of 
1846  and  1857,  which  is  herewith,  in  part,  presented: 


WHAT  A  LOW  TARIFF  DID  FOR   THE  COUNTRY. 

Between  1846  and  1860  the  country  had  a  low  tariff.  Under  the 
law  of  1846  the  average'  duty  was  about  25  per  cent.,  and  under  the 
act  of  1857  it  was  about  20  per  cent.  There  was  never  a  period  of 
greater  prosperity  in  the  history  of  the  country. 


i 


TARIFF  HI  STORY.  25 


In  1850  the  cash  value  of  the  farms  was  $3,271,375,426,  and  in  1860 
it  was  $6,645,045,057,  an  increase  of  103  per  cent.  In  1870  the  value 
of  farms  was  $9,262,853,861  in  currency,  an  increase  of  only  39  per 
cent,  over  the  gold  valuations  of  1860.  In  1880  the  value  of  farms 
was  $10,197,096,766,  an  increase  of  a  little  more  than  10  per  cent, 
over  the  valuations  of  1870.  From  1850  to  1860  the  value  of  farming 
implements  increased  63.50  per  cent.  In  the  next  decade  the  increase 
was  only  36  per  cent,  in  currency,  while  from  1870  to  1880  the  increase 
was  only  20.66  per  cent. 

SOME   NOTABLE  COMPARISONS. 

From  1830  to  1840  the  aggregate  of  real  and  personal  property 
increased  40  per  cent.;  from  1840  to  1850  37  per  cent.  In  1850  this 
aggregate  value  was  $7,135,780,228;  in  1860  it  was  $16,159,616,068, 
an  increase  of  126  per  cent.  In  1870  the  aggregate  value  was  $30,068,- 
518,507  in  currency,  being  an  apparent  increase  of  a  little  more  than 
85  per  cent.  In  1860  the  total  State  and  local  taxation  was  $94,186,- 
746,  but  in  1870  it  had  reached  the  enormous  sum  of  $280,591,521,  an 
increase  of  198  per  cent.,  although  the  value  of  property  had  increased 
only  85  per  cent.  An  examination  of  the  report  of  the  Superintendent 
of  the  Census  for  1870  shows  that  the  increase  in  the  value  of  real  and 
personal  property  from  1850  to  1860  was  more  than  184  per  cent., 
instead  of  126  per  cent.,  and  that  instead  of  an  increase  of  85  per  cent, 
from  1860  to  1870  there  was  an  actual  decrease  of  more  than  3  per 
cent.  This  arises  from  what  the  Superintendent  says  was  an  under- 
valuation of  property  in  1860  by  carelessness  of  from  20  to  80  per 
cent.,  while  the  nominal  valuation  of  property  was  increased  in  1870 
from  30  to  40  per  cent,  through  the  eli'ects  of  currency  inflation  and 
other  causes.  Making  the  necessary  allowances  for  these  suma;  we 
have  $20,199,520,085  as  the  proper  valuation  for  1860  and  $19,544,- 
537,030  as  the  true  valuation  for  1870.  If  our  wealth  had  increased 
from  1860  to  1880  at  the  same  rate  that  it  did  from  1850  to  1860,  it 
would  have  reached,  in  1880,  $83,000,000,000,  instead  of  $43,500,- 
000,000. 

LOW  TARIFF  INCREASES   MANUFACTURING. 

There  was  some  wonderful  increases  in  our  manufacturing  and  me- 
chanical industries.  In  1850  the  total  value  of  the  products  of  me- 
chanical and  manufacturing  industries  was  $1,019,106,616;  in  1860 
it  was  $1,885,861,676,  an  increase  of  87  per  cent.,  although  the  popu- 
lation of  the  country  had  increased  only  35.50  per  cent.  From  1860 
to  1870  the  actual  increase  was  only  52  per  cent. 

PRODUCTION  OF  COAL  INCREASED. 

The  increase  in  the  production  of  coal,  which,  according  to  the  pro- 
tection leaders,  indicates  better  than  any  other  single  branch  of  in- 
dustry the  progress  of  all  manufacturing  enterprises,  was  very  won- 
derful between  1850  to  1860.     The  following  table  shows  the  increase: 

Per  Cent. 

Gain  in  number  of  mines 22.30 

Gain  in  value  of  yearly  products 182.00 

Gain  in  value  of  material  used 1,017.00 

Gain  in  amount  paid  as  wages 137.00 

Gain  in  number  of  hands  employed 143.33 

Gain  in  amount  of  capital  invested 253.00 

COAL  OUTPUT  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  INCREASED. 

In  Pennsylvania  the  capital  invested  in  the  production  of  coal  was 
331  per  cent,  greater  in  1860  than  in  1850,  and  the  value  of  the  coal 
product  increased  179.90  per  cent.  In  Maryland  the  increase  was 
nearly  137  per  cent.,  in  Ohio  nearly  127  per  cent.,  in  Indiana  nearly 
652  per  cent.,  in  Illinois  it  was  1,708  per  cent.,  in  Iowa  it  was  2,204 
per  cent.,  in  Kentucky  it  was  200  per  cent.,  and  in  Alabama  nearly 
237  per  cent. 


26  TARIFF  HISTORY. 

HIGH   TARIFF  KILLED  SHIPBUILDING. 

During  the  fiscal  year  our  foreign  trade  amounted  to  $687,372,176, 
which  was  $45,000,000  greater  than  ever  before.  We  built  2,265  ships 
and  barks  between  1850  and  1860,  and  only  800  during  the  next 
decade,  and  only  608  between  1870  and  1880.  Then  our  tonnage  en- 
gaged in  all  trades,  coasting  as  well  as  foreign,  was  5,353,868  tons; 
now,  after  the  expiration  of  twenty  years,  it  is  4,068,035  tons. 

REVENUE  TARIFF  PROMOTES  INTELLECTUAL 
CONDITIONS. 

The  social  and  intellectual  condition  of  the  people  kept  pace  with 
the  material  progress.  Schools,  churches  and  libraries  flourished. 
The  products  of  the  printing  establishments  of  the  United  States  in- 
creased during  the  same  time  143  per  cent.  Wonderful  as  this  is,  it 
does  not  tell  the  story  of  the  prosperity  and  growth  of  the  preceding 
decade  under  a  revenue  tarifl'.  Then  the  products  of  the  printing 
houses  increased  168  per  cent.,  while  the  capital  invested  increased 
235  per  cent.  In  New  England  the  increased  product  was  more  than 
96  per  cent.,  and  in  the  Middle  States  139  per  cent.  Pennsylvania  in- 
creased her  product  250  per  cent.,  New  Jersey  322  per  cent.  In  the 
eleven  Western  States  and  Territories  the  increase  was  572  per  cent. 
The  State  of  New  York  increased  104.60  per  cent.,  and  actually  turned 
out  more  than  the  whole  country  produced  in  1850. 

POSTOFFICES  INCREASED. 

Jv  1850  we  had  18,417  postoffices  and  178,672  miles  of  post  routes, 
but  in  1860. we  had  28,498  postoffices  and  245,594  miles  of  post  routes, 
an  increase  of  55  per  cent.,  in  the  number  of  offices  and  35  per  cent, 
in  the  miles  of  routes.  In  1880,  twenty  years  later,  we  had  42,989 
postoffices  and  343,888  miles  of  post  roads,  being  an  increase  since 
1860  of  only  50  per  cent,  in  one  and  42.50  in  the  other. 

MANUFACTURE  OF    PAPER   INCREASED. 

In  the  manufacture  of  paper  the  United  States  increased  the  value 
of  its  product  106.50  per  cent,  from  1860  to  1870,  while  the  capital 
invested  increased  126.50  per  cent.,  but  from  1850  to  1860  the  value  of 
the  product  increased  more  than  108  per  cent,  and  the  capital  invested 
nearly  180  per  cent.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  hands  employed 
was  73.50  per  cent.,  and  in  the  total  amount  of  wages  paid  89  per 
cent.     Pennsylvania  alone  increased  her  product  128  per  cent. 

HOW   RAILROAD  BUILDING   FLOURISHED. 

Up  to  the  year  1850  we  had  constructed  only  9,021  miles  of  railroad 
in  this  country,  but  at  the  close  of  1860  we  had  30,635  miles,  being  an 
increase  of  239.5  per  cent,  in  ten  years.  At  the  close  of  the  year  1870 
we  had  52,914  miles,  being  an  increase  of  a  little  more  than  72  per 
cent,  over  1860,  notwithstanding  the  Government  had  since  1860 
granted  millions  of  acres  of  public  lands  and  issued  its  own  bonds  to 
the  amount  of  millions  of  dollars  to  various  railroad  companies  to  aid 
in  the  construction  of  their  lines.  In  1880  we  had  88,237  miles,  an 
increase  of  66.66  per  cent,  during  the  decade. 

LABOR  AND  WAGES  INCREASED. 

The  value  of  the  output  of  our  woolen  mills  from  1850  to  1860 
increased  nearly  42.5  per  cent.,  while  from  1870  to  1880  it  increased 
only  22.57  per  cent.  The  number  of  hands  employed  increased  18.5 
per  cent,  and  the  total  wages  increased  36.8  per  cent.  In  New  England 
the  product  of  the  woolen  mills  increased  62  per  cent. ;  the  increase  in 
Rhode  Island  being  176  per  cent.;  Massachusetts,  53.7  per  cent.;  New 
Jersey,  21.57  per  cent.;  Vermont,  61.39;  Maine,  83.46. 


TARIFF  HISTORY.  27 


CARPET   MANUFACTURING   INCREASED. 

The  value  of  the  carpet  manufacturers  increased  45.40  per  cent. 
The  increase  in  the  number  of  hands  employed  was  8  per  cent,  and  in 
wages  paid  nearly  24  per  cent.  The  compensation  of  each  hand  was 
15  per  cent,  more  in  1860  than  in  1850.  In  the  Middle  States  the 
value  of  the  product  increased  80.90  per  cent.;  in  Maine,  47.30;  Mas- 
sachusetts, 44.80;  New  York,  32.90;  Pennsylvania,  138;  Ohio,  208. 

The  product  of  the  manufacturers  of  hosiery  increased  608  per  cent. 
The  Eastern  States  increased  481  per  cent.;  Middle  States,  695.50; 
Western  States,  445.  Pennsylvania  increased  276  per  cent.;  Con- 
necticut, 523;  New  Jersey,  379;  Massachusetts,  373;  Maryland,  255; 
Ohio,  278;  Missouri,  726. 

REVENUE    TARIFF    PROMOTES    IRON    PRODUCTION. 

The  production  of  iron  ore  increased  79.20  per  cent,  while  the 
capital  invested  increased  126.30  per  cent.  The  total  number  of  hands 
employed  in  this  industry  was  45  per  cent,  greater  in  1860  than  in 
1850,  and  the  total  amount  of  wages  paid  was  nearly  57  per  cent, 
greater. 

PENNSYLVANIA   SHARED  WELL. 

The  production  of  pig  iron  increased  54  per  cent,  in  the  United 
States;  in  Pennsylvania,  82  per  cent.;  New  Jersey,  105;  Kentucky, 
27;  New  York,  53.  At  the  same  time  the  price  of  pig  iron  was  re- 
duced from  $23.43  in  1850  to  $21.13  in  1860. 

The  increase  in  the  value  of  bar,  sheet  and  railroad  iron  was  more 
than  100  per  cent.  The  number  of  hands  employed  increased  66  per 
cent.,  and  the  amount  of  wages  paid  80  per  cent.  Pennsylvania  in- 
creased her  production  106  per  cent.;  Delaware,  230;  Maryland,  104; 
Ohio,  173;  Kentucky,  68;  Virginia,  104. 

Iron  castings  increased  in  the  value  of  the  product  74.80  per  cent. ; 
in  the  Middle  States,  more  than  100  per  cent.;  in  Pennsylvania,  100 
per  cent.;  in  Maine,  more  than  520  per  cent. 

In  the  production  of  hardware  there  was  an  increase  of  56.70  per 
cent.,  while  the  capital  increased  90  per  cent.,  and  the  number  of 
hands  employed  53.50  per  cent.  The  New  England  States  increased 
100  per  cent,  and  made  more  hardware  in  1860  than  all  the  States 
made  in  1850.  Connecticut  alone  increased  her  production  103.80 
per  cent.;  New  Jersey,  360;  Ohio,  99;  the  Western  States,  74  percent. 

STEEL   INDUSTRY   BORN    UNDER  THE    REVENUE   TARIFF. 

The  steel  industry  had  its  birth  during  the  decade  from  1850  to 
1860.  The  product  increased  99.5  per  cent.;  capital  invested,  over 
3,000;  hands  employed,  1770;  wages  paid,  123.6. 

In  the  manufacture  of  machinery,  steam  engines,  etc.,  including  loco- 
motives, hay  and  cotton  presses  and  cotton  and  woolen  machinery,  the 
value  of  the  product  increased  66.6  per  cent,  in  the  whole  country,  but 
in  the  Western  States  the  increase  was  217  per  cent. 

The  manufacture  of  sewing  machines  was  scarcely  known  in  1850, 
but  in  1860  the  value  of  the  product  was  $4,247,820. 


28 


TARIFF  HISTORY. 


VOTES  ON  TARIFFS,  1789  TO  1883. 

A. — ^Table  showing  the  votes,  by  States,  given  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  the  passage  of  each  of  the  general 
tariff  acts  since  that  of  1789  to  1883. 


States. 

1790. 

1791. 

1792. 

Mar. 
3, 

1797. 

1804. 

July 

1812. 

T 

1816. 

1824. 

May 

29, 
1828. 

1 

i 

^ 

i 

i 
^ 

i 

i 
^ 

1 

(D  \   OB 

i  i 

^ 

OS 

t 

New  England  States: 
Maine   

...I...I...I.. 

1. .,!--- 

I...I-- 

,..•• 

5 
2 
4 

1 

27 

i 

1 
1 

1    '( 

New  Hampshire    

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

6 
4 

1 

4 
3 
5 

1 
3 

1 
1 

2 
3 

4 
2 
10 
6 

1 

7 
4 
5 

"5 

"i 
"i 

1 

"7 

1 
2 

•3 
3 
12 
3 
2 

8 
5 
15 

., 

'3 
3 
2 

5 
"5 

... 
1 

13 
6 
2 

9 

1 
3 

'     1 

5 
7 
2 
2 

20 
"2 

3 

1 
4 
2 

2 

"3 

"5 

'1 
5 

5 
2 

26 

«^ 

1 
3 

5 

ii 

1 

8 

-1 

'  0 

6 

2 

8 
5 

1 

t 

3 

1 
1 

2 
'3 
"3 

li 

Connecticut  

3 

2 

Rhode  Island 

1 

Middle    States: 
New  York 

4 
2 
7 
1 
3 

1 
"2 

6 

Pennsvli'Tnia    

Delaware    

5 

VVt  St    Virginia 

Western   and  North- 
western   SUtes : 
Ohio  ^ 

1 

1 

4 

14 
2 
1 

... 

13 
3 
1 

Illinois    

Michigan   

1 

... 

... 

1 

Kansas    ; ". 

' 

Nebraska    

Colorado   

Southern  and  South- 
western   States : 
Virginia   

7 
5 
2 
3 

"i 

4 

"i 

4 
4 
2 
3 

3 
1 
3 

5 
4 
2 
2 

9 
5 
3 

2 

5 

2 

1 

17 
9 
5 
2 

•• 

14 
6 
6 
3 

7 
3 

1 

7 

'4 
3 

13 
11 
3 
3 

1 

21 
13 
9 

7 
3 

1 

3 

15 

North  Carolina 

13 

South    Carolina 

8 

Georgia      

7 

Alabama   .         

3 

' 

1 

Florida 

' 

1 

... 

3 

3 

Texas  

Kentucky 

2 

1 

5 
2 

4 
3 

'.'.'. 

6 
3 

1 
2 

11 
2 

7 

12 

9 

Pacific   States: 

Nevada  

... 

... 

... 

.. 

... 

...|... 

... 

.  Total j  39J  13|  SSj  21j  37]  20|  66]  2I|  98]. .|  76|  48|  88 

-M-\m 

102 1 105 1  94 

TARIFF  HISTORY. 


A. — ^Table  showing  the  votes,  by  States,  given  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  the  passage  of  each  of  the  general 
tariff  acts  since  that  of  1789. — Continued. 


States. 

July 

14. 
1832. 

Feb. 

lis. 

1842. 

1846. 

1857. 

Mar. 

2, 
1861. 

Aug". 

5« 
1861. 

Dec. 
24, 

1861. 

July 
14. 
1862. 

1 

i 
^ 

1 

1 

1^ 

i 

1^ 

OS 

i 

> 

J 

i 

i 

i 
52; 

1 

New  England  States: 
Maine  

6 
5 

1 

3 

8 
3 

2 

2 
3 
12 
1 

6 
4 

11 
"4 
■'9 

1 
1 
5 
13 
6 
2 

19 
6 

21 

1 

4 

"4 

10 
6 
2 

23 
6 

20 
1 
4 

2 
4 

i 

8 

5 
3 

"i 

15 

"2 

1 
1 
2 
9 
4 
2 

14 
6 
23 

6 
2 

"9 

i 

15 
2 
3 

i 
3 

4 

1 

10 

1 

15 

1 
1 

3 
2 
3 
9 
4 
2 

18 
4 
22 

6 

i 

2 

5 
3 

8 

1 
1 

25 
3 

14 

"i 

"i 
2 
1 

2 
1 

6 

1 
3 

6 

1 
3 
9 

1 

20 

1 
9 

1 
"i 

6 
2 
2 
7 
1 
1 

13 
13 

Massachusetts   

4 
2 

1 

Rhode    Island 

Middle   States: 
New    York 

27 
3 
14 

4 
3 

5 

Delaware   

Maryland  

8 

'2 

1 

1 

4 

3 

1 

1 

West   Virginia 

Western   and  North- 
western  States: 
Ohio  

13 
3 
1 

... 
... 

7 
2 

1 

6 

1 

8 
3 

1 
1 

6 
3 

2 

11 
5 
5 
3 

8 
2 

5 
3 
3 
1 

1 

15 
8 
4 
3 

13 
5 
3 
3 
1 
2 

'  i 

3 

3 

"i 
"5 

10 
2 
2 
4 

•*! 

1 

10 
5 
3 

"2 
"2 

8 
5 
3 
2 

"i 
"i 

6 
5 

4 

"i 
1 

"i 

7 
5 

3 
2 

1 
2 
1 

1 

F) 

H 

Illinois  

3 

Michigan  

Wisconsin  

Minnesota   

Iowa    

1 

3 

Missouri  

1 

... 

... 

1 

... 

2 

5 

... 

1 

Kansas   

Nebraska  

Colorado  

■ 

Southern  and  South- 
western  States: 
Virginia    

11 
8 
3 

1 
2 

1 

8 
4 
6 
6 
1 

20 
13 
9 
6 

3 

1 

1 

3 

"i 

17 
10 
5 
7 
4 
3 

13 

7 
7 

? 

4 

1 
3 
2 

"4 

5 

1 
3 

"2 

"i 
"i 

"e 

6 

13 
6 
4 
4 

7 
4 

1 
4 
2 

1 
7 
7 

2 

"i 

8 
6 

1 

1 

3 

1 

North    Carolina 

South    Carolina 

Georgia  

Alabama  

Mississippi  

. . . 

Florida    ^. 

Loiusiana 

1 

2 

3 

... 

2 

1 

' 

Texas  

Arkansas    

1 
8 
13 

Kentu<*y   

9 
9 

3 

12 
8 

'"i 

4 

2 

4 
2 

1 
6 

1 

7 

"i 

6 

2 

5 

1? 

Pacific  States: 
California  

Oregon  

.  • . 

. . . 

1 

1 

Nerada 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

Total [132[  65(119[  85|103|  99|114I  93 1 118] 72 1 102 1  43|  82|  48]  76|  29|  69|  36 


30 


TARIFF  HISTORY. 


A. — ^Table  showing  the  votes,  by  States,  given  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  the  passage  of  each  of  the  general 
tariff  acts  since  that  of  1789 — Continued. 


States. 


New  England  States: 

Maine  

New  Hampshire 

Vermont    

Massachusetts   

Connecticut  

Rhode  Island 


Middle  States: 

New    York 

New   Jersey 

Pennsylvania   

Delaware  

Maryland  

West  Virginia 


Western   and   Northwestern 
States : 

Ohio    

Indiana    

Illinois   

Michigan    

Wisconsin  

Minnesota    

Iowa    

Missouri    .«« 

Kansas  

Nebraska    

Colorado 


Southern  and  Southwestern 
States: 

Virginia   

North    Carolina 

South    Carolina 

Georgia    

Alabama    

Mississippi   

Florida 

Louisiana   

Texas  

Arkansas  

Kentucky   

Tennessee  


Pacific  States: 

California  

Oregon   

Nevada    


June  Mar. 

30,    i    3, 
1864.     1865. 


oil  h 


July 


July  June 

14,    I    6, 
1870.   1872 


V  i    CO  ^    V  \    S3 


2 

i 


Feb. 

8, 
1875. 


Mar. 
3. 

1875. 


Mar. 
3, 

1883. 


Total I  81[  26|  85|  43|  95[  49|152|35|149|  61|136|  99[123|114[152|U6 

Note — On  the  passage  bv  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  act  of 
May  1,  1872,  placing  coffee  and  tea  on  the  free  list,  there  were  but  9 
negative  votes,  viz :  Maryland,  2 ;  Texas,  1 ;  Arkansas,  1 ;  Nevada,  1 ; 
Kentucky,  2 ;  Missouri,  1 ;  Pennsylvania,  1. 


TARIFF  HISTORY.  tl 


AVERAGE   DUTY   FROM   1821   TO  1861. 

Date   of   Tariff  Time   of         Dutiable  Gross         Average 

Operation        Imports  Revenue     Duty 
Years.  Per  cent 

Previous    to    1821 4         $264,962,457  $90,436,612     34i^ 

May   22,    1824 4  301,538,885  115,597,942     38V2 

May    19,    1828 4  297,332,015  122,015,500     41 V2 

July    14,    1832 9  625,836,002  198,263,107     31% 

Sept.     11,     1841 1  69,534,601  16,622,746     23  y* 

Aug.     30,     1842 4  295,178,151  97,109,442     33 

Aug.     30,     1846 10       2,173,428,818  523,957,872     241/0 

May  3,   1857    (to  1861)    3  741.213.216  144,542.956     20^ 

Total 39    $4,709,024,145  $1,308,546,177     29 

(Ex.  Doc.  No.  2,  Senate  39th  Con.,  2d  Sess.     Submitted  by  David  A. 
Wells,  Spec.  Com'r  Revenue.) 

Average  rate  of  duty  collected  per  capita  for  the  periods  named 
was: 

Tariff  1846  to  1857  (both  inclusive)  1.88% 


"   1858  to  1860   " 

(( 

1.56 

"   1846  to  1860   " 

li 

1.81  4-5 

"   1861  to  1864   " 

a 

1.841/2 

"   1890  to  1893   " 

i( 

3.163/4 

"   1894  to  1897   " 

(( 

2.18% 

"   1898  to  1905   " 

(( 

2.96% 

By  taking  the  average  annual  duty  collected  per  capita  (as 
published  in  a  table  contained  in  the  speech  of  the  Hon.  James  T. 
McCleary  (Rep.),  Record,  August  22,  1906)  and  dividing  the  sum 
thereof  by  the  number  of  years,  we  get  the  results  just  stated. 

The  duty  collected  per  capita,  Dingley  Tariff,  1905,  was  $3.11. 
(Representative  McLeary's  speech.) 

MORE   REPUBLICANS  COMMEND  TARIFF,  1846. 

Senator  Allison,  urging  tariff  reform  in  1870,  commended  the 
Walker  tariff.    He  said: 

"It  is  claimed  that  the  high  rates  of  our  present  tariff  are  necessary 
because  the  revenue  to  be  obtained  therefrom  is  essential  to  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  that  if  we  reduce  the  rates  at  all  the  effect  will  be  the 
depression  of  all  the  industrial  interests  of  the  country. 

"The  tariff  of  1846,  although  confessedly  and  professedly  a  tariff  for 
revenue,  was,  so  far  as  regards  all  the  great  interests  of  the  country, 
as  perfect  a  tariff  as  any  that  we  have  ever  had.  If  any  interest  was 
depressed  under  the  tariff  of  1846,  it  was  the  iron  interest. 

INCREASE  OF  WEALTH. 

"I  do  not  believe  that  this  interest,  as  compared  with  other  in- 
terests, had  sufficient  advantage  under  that  tariff;  yet  when  we  com- 
pare the  growth  of  the  country  from  1840  to  1850  with  the  growth 
of  the  country  from  1850  to  1860,  the  latter  decade  being  entirely 
under  the  tariff  of  1846  or  the  amended  and  greatly  reduced  tariff 
of  1857,  we  find  that  the  increase  in  our  wealth  between  1850  and 
1860  was  equivalent  to  126  per  cent.,  while  it  was  only  64  per  cent, 
between  1840  and  1850,  four  years  of  which  decade  were  under  the 
tariff  of  1842,  known  as  a  high  protective  tariff,  but  the  average 
rate  of  which  was  about  70  per  cent,  below  the  existing  rate,  or  27 
per  cent,  under  the  tariff  of  1842,  as  against  44  per  cent,  upon  all 
importations  under  the  present  tariff.  Our  industries  were  generally 
prosperous  in  1860,  with  the  exception,  possibly,  of  the  iron  industry. 

"This  was  the  statement  of  Mr.  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  on  this  floor 
during  the  discussions  of  the  tariff  in  1864. 


32  TARIFF  HISTORY. 


"With  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  steel  industry  in  1860,  the 
steel  manufacturers  in  186G,  memorializing  Congress  for  increase  of 
duties  on  steel,  stated  that  'it  was  reserved  to  Pittsburg  to  bring 
about  the  first  substantial  and  enduring  success  in  the  year  1860; 
and,  encouraged  by  our  example,  numerous  establishments  have  sprung 
into  existence,  as  already  indicated  in  this  paper.' 

"This  shows  that  under  the  revenue  tariff  of  1857,  which  imposed 
only  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  12  per  cent,  on  steel,  a  substantial  suc- 
cess was  achieved  in  the  steel  manufacture  in  1860.  I  have  read 
the  language  of  the  memorial." 

NEW  ENGLANDERS  CHANGE  FROM  HIGH  TO  LOW  TARIFF. 

The  New  England  members  of  both  houses,  as  a  rule,  had  voted 
for  the  high  tariff  of  1842,  opposed  the  revenue  tariff  of  1846,  but 
realizing  its  beneficial  effects,  and  desiring  to  lessen  the  accumu- 
lation of  the  peoples'  money  in  the  Treasury,  all  three  of  the 
political  parties  voted  for  the  much  lower  tariff,  the  Act  of  1857, 
entitled:  "An  Act  reducing  the  duty  on  imports  and  for  other 
purposes,"  about  which  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  said: 

SENATOR  WILSON. 

"In  closing,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  remarks  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to 
svibmit  to  the  Senate  and  the  country  that  the  commonwealth  I 
represent  on  this  floor — I  say  in  part  for  my  colleague,  Mr.  Sumner, 
after  an  enforced  absence  of  more  than  nine  months,  is  here  tonight 
to  give  his  vote,  if  he  can  raise  his  voice,  for  the  interest  of  his  State — 
has  a  deep  interest  in  the  modification  of  the  tariff  of  1846  by  this 
Congress.  Her  merchants,  manufacturers,  mechanics  and  business 
men,  in  all  departments  of  a  varied  industry,  want  action  now 
before  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress  passes  away.  They  are  for  the 
reduction  of  the  revenue  to  the  actual  wants  of  an  economical  ad- 
ministration of  the  government;  for  the  depletion  of  the  Treasury, 
now  full  with  millions  of  hoarded  gold;  for  a  free  list,  embracing 
articles  of  prime  necessity  we  do  not  produce;  for  mere  nominal 
duties  on  articles  which  make  up  a  large  portion  of  our  domestic 
industry,  and  for  such  an  adjustment  of  the  duties  on  the  pro- 
ductions of  other  nations  that  come  in  direct  competition  with  the 
product  of  American  capital,  labor  and  skill  and  shall  impose  the 
least  burdens  on  that  capital,  labor  and  skill." 

PANIC  OF  1857  WAS   FINANCIAL  AND  BRIEF. 

About  the  operations  of  the  tariff  of  1857,  Mr.  Edward  Atkinson, 
of  Massachusetts,  before  the  Industrial  Commission,  1901,  said: 

"I  then  come  down  to  the  tariff  of  1857,  the  lowest  ever  known  in 
this  country,  with  the  largest  free  list.  The  period  from  1857  to  the 
beginning  of  the  Civil  War  saw  the  most  steady  and  constant  de- 
velopment of  the  textile  manufacturers  of  this  country  that  I  have 
ever  known.  I  do  not  think  there  has  been  any  such  historical  coin- 
cidence as  you  suggest." 

Q.  "As  a  matter  of  history,  was  not  the  year  1857  the  year  of  the 
great  panic,  from  which  we  never  recovered  until  the  outbreak  of  the 
war?" 

Mr.  Atkinson.  "It  was  the  year  of  the  great  bank  panic,  in  which 
two  of  the  commission  houses  to  which  my  goods  were  consigned 
suspended  payment.  That  lasted  but  a  few  months  and  was  purely  a 
financial  panic.  It  did  not  interfere  with  the  progress  of  arts  and 
industries,  and  in  1858  great  prosperity  had  returned. 

"We  were  building  the  Lewiston  mills  and  the  Indian  Orchard 
mills,  and  I  was  familiar  with  the  whole  business.  From  that  time 
until  the  beginning  of  the  war  we  saw  the  most  steady  progressive 
condition  of  prosperity  in  the  textile  art  that  I  have  ever  known." 


TARIFF  HISTORY. 


The  tariff  of  1857  having  been  purposely  fixed  to  reduce  the 
revenue,  when  the  Civil  War  came  on,  of  necessity,  the  rates  had 
to  be  raised  to  meet  the  expenses  of  that  great  struggle,  and  were 
raised  by  the  first  act,  approved  by  President  Lincoln,  August  5, 
1861,  entitled: 

CIVIL   WAR   TARIFFS  TO   BE   "TEMPORARY." 

"An  act  to  provide  increased  revenues  from  imports,  pay  interest 
on  public  debts  and  for  other  purposes." 

The  Act  of  July  14,  1862,  was  entitled: 

"An  act  increasing,  temporarily,  the  duties  on  imports  and  for 
other  purposes." 

The  Act  of  April  29,  1864,  was  entitled: 

"Joint  resolution  to  increase,  temporarily,  the  duties  on  imports." 

And  Senator  Morrill,  in  explaining  the  Act  of  June  30,  1864, 
the  main  war  tariff,  said: 

"This  is  intended  as  a  war  measure,  a  temporary  measure,  and  we 
must  give  it  bur  support  as  .such." 

The  people  generally  had  become  so  wedded  to  the  happy  effects 
of  the  low  tariffs  preceding  the  Civil  War,  that  members  of  Con- 
gress had  to  be  assured  that  these  war  rates,  in  effect  protective, 
were  to  be  only  "temporary,"  and  hence  Senator  Morrill  spoke 
as  he  did. 

Senator  Henry  Wilson,  in  the  Senate,  in  1861,  said: 

TARIFF  OF  1857  COMMENDED. 

"It  is  very  easy  for  a  gentleman  of  the  Northwest  to  rise  on  this 
floor  and  talk  about  protection  to  Pennsylvania  and  New  England 
and  to  say  that  his  people  have  no  protection;  but,  sir,  standing  here 
today,  I  express  it  as  my  deliberate  judgment  that  there  are  not 
half  a  dozen  States — and  I  doubt  whether  there  be  among  them  all 
one — so  little  interested  in  changing  the  tariff  as  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts. I  say  further,  as  the  representative  of  that  State,  I  know 
that  in  voting  for  this  bill  I  am  voting  against  the  wishes  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  people  of  my  State,  who  believe  the  present  tariff 
better  for  us  than  your  proposed  tariff;  and  I  vote,  too,  against  my 
own  deliberate  judgment,  for  I  had  rather  stand  on  the  tariff  of 
1857  than  take  this  bill." 

Several  Senators.    "Then,  why  vote  for  it  ?" 

Mr.  Wilson.  "I  vote  for  it  to  increase  the  revenues  of  the  Govern- 
ment. *  *  *  I  want  no  man  to  vote  for  this  bill  in  order  to  protect 
the  interests  of  Massachvisetts ;  for  the  tariff  of  1857,  precisely  and 
exactly  as  it  stands  upon  your  statute  books  today,  so  far  as  the 
productive  industry  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  is  con- 
ceraed,  in  all  its  various  departments,  amounting  to  $350,000,000 
annually,  is  the  best  tariff"  ever  put  upon  the  statute  books  of  this 
country.  That  is  my  judgment;  and  by  passing  this  bill  we  shall 
gain  nothing  as  a  State.  1  shall  vote  for  the  bill,  but  /  vote  for  it  to 
raise  revenue;  I  vote  for  it  as  a  revenue  measure." 

These  "temporary"  tariffs  were  approved  by  President  Lincoln, 
who  was  not  a  "stand  patter."  As  early  as  February  15,  1861,  he 
said: 

"Every  varying  circumstance  will  require  frequent  modification  as 
to  the  amount  (of  tariff")  needed  and  the  sources  of  supply.  So  far, 
there  is  little  difference  of  opinion  among  the  people." 


34  TARIFF  HISTORY. 


He  approved  many  different  tariff  acts. 

It  was  during  the  operation  of  these  high  war  tariffs  that 
"protection"  took  deep  root.  Special  interests  grew  up  and  fat- 
tened, immense  fortunes  were  amassed,  arming  individuals  with 
the  power  to  perpetuate  highly  protective  tariffs,  against  which 
Jackson,  in  his  farewell  address,  warned  the  people  in  these 
patriotic  words: 

PRESIDENT  JACKSON'S^  FAREWELL  ADVICE. 

The  corporations  and  wealthy  individuals  who  are  engaged  in  large 
manufacturing  establishments  desire  a  high  tariff  to  increase  their 
gains.  Designing  politicians  will  support  it  to  conciliate  their  favor 
and  to  obtain  the  means  of  profuse  expenditure  for  the  purpose  of  pur- 
chasing influence  in  other  quarters.  *  «  *  j)o  not  allow  your- 
selves, my  fellow-citizens,  to  be  misled  on  this  subject.  The  Federal 
Government  cannot  collect  a  surplus  for  such  purposes  without  vio- 
lating the  principles  of  the  Constitution  and  assuming  power  which 
has  not  been  granted.  It  is,  moreover,  a  system  of  injustice,  and  if 
persisted  in  will  lead  to  corruption  and  must  end  in  ruin. 

There  were  few,  if  any,  millionaires  and  no  multi-millionaires, 
previous  to  the  Civil  War,  the  people  generally  were  prosperous 
from  1846  to  1860,  the  low  tariff  era,  but  in  1864,  President  Lincoln 
had  noticed  a  change  had  been  wrought  "as  a  result  of  the  war," 
and  on  November  21,  1864,  it  is  said,  he  wrote  his  friend  William 
S.  Elkins,  of  Illinois,  the  following  letter: 

PRESIDENT   LINCOLN. 

Yes,  we  may  all  congratulate  ourselves  that  this  cruel  war  is  near- 
ing  its  close.  It  has  cost  a  vast  amount  of  treasure  and  blood.  The 
best  olood  of  the  flower  of  American  youth  has  been  freely  offered  upon 
our  country's  altar  that  the  nation  might  live.  It  has  been,  indeed, 
a  trying  hour  for  the  Republic,  but  I  see  in  the  near  future  a  crisis 
approaching  that  unnerves  me  and  causes  me  to  tremble  for  the  safety 
of  my  country. 

As  a  result  of  the  war,  corporations  have  been  enthroned  and  an  eTa 
of  corruption  in  high  places  will  follow,  and  the  money  power  of  the 
country  will  endeavor  to  prolong  its  reign  by  working  upon  the  preju- 
dices of  the  people  until  all  the  wealth  is  aggregated  in  a  few  hands 
and  the  Republic  is  destroyed.  I  feel  at  this  moment  more  anxiety 
for  the  safety  of  my  country  than  ever  before,  even  in  the  midst  of 
war.     God  grant  that  my  suspicions  may  prove  groundless. 

George  H.  Shibley's  book,  "The  Money  Question,"  page  232, 
with  this  foot  note: 

The  above  was  published  in  a  collection  of  Lincoln's  sayings,  years 
and  years  ago,  by  Mr.  Jesse  Harper.  Mr.  Harper  is  still  living,  and  is 
a  respected  citizen  of  Danville,  111. 

WHEN  TRUSTS  AND  COMBINATIONS  STARTED. 
Senator  Sherman,  March  24,  1890,  said: 

"We  know  that  within  twenty  years,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  our  country,  combinations  have  been  made,  involving  from  eighty 
to  one  hundred  million  dollars,  combinations  so  strong  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  any  other  combination  to  compete  with  them,  combinations 
so  powerful  and  exclusive  as  to  reach  every  branch  of  trade  and  busi- 
ness in  the  United  States.  This  has  been  going  on  durinff  that  time." 
(21,   Cong.  Rec,  2568.) 


TARIFF  HISTORY.  36 


Senator  Edmunds,  March  27,  1890,  in  the  same  debate,  said: 

"These  great  monopolies  *  *  *  have  come  up  mainly  in  the 
last  twenty  or  thirty  years." 

REPUBLICAN  TARIFF  CHANGES. 

Until  the  Republicans  and  their  side  partners,  the  protected 
monopolists,  succeeded  in  securing  the  enactment  of  a  tariff  law 
that  gives  them  practically  control  of  the  American  market,  by 
prohibiting  competition  from  abroad  on  all  articles  of  domestic 
manufacture,  they  did  not  regard  tariff  schedules  as  sacred  as 
they  do  today.  As  showing  the  Republican  record  in  this 
particular,  the  following  list  of  acts  from  an  official  document 
issued  by  a  Joint  Congressional  Committee  in  1898  convicts  the 
Republican  party  of  conspiracy  with  the  protected  monopolists  to 
continually  tinker  the  tariff  in  their  interests.  The  acts  are  as 
follows: 

Act  of  March  2,  1861. 
Act  of  August  5,  1861. 

Act  to  increase  the  duties  on  tea,  coffee  and  sugar,  December  24,1861. 
Act  of  July  14,  1862. 
Act  of  March  3,  1863. 

Joint  resolution  of  April  29,  1864,  temporarily  increasing  duties. 
Act  of  June  30,  1864,  to  increase  duties. 

Act  of  March  3,  1865,  amending  certain  acts  imposing  duties  on 
imports. 

Act  of  May  16,  1866,  imposing  duties  on  live  animals. 

Act  of  June  1,  1866,  to  protect  lumbermen. 

Act  of  July  28,   1866. 

Act  of  March  2,  1867. 

Act  of  March  22,  1867. 

Joint  resolution  of  March  2,  1867. 

Act  of  March  25,  1867. 

Act  of  March  26,  1867. 

Act  of  March  29,  1867. 

Act  of  February  3,  1868. 

Act  of  February  19,  1869. 

Act  of  February  24,  1869. 

Act  of  July  14,  1870. 

Act  of  December  22,  1870. 

Act  of  January  30,  1871. 

Act  of  March  5,  1872. 

Act  of  April  5,  1872. 

Act  of  May  1,  1872. 

Act  of  June  6,  1872. 

Act  of  June  10,  1872. 

Act  of  March  3,  1873. 

Act  of  May  9,  1874. 

Act  of  June  3,  1874. 

Act  of  June  18,  1874. 

Act  of  June  22,  1874. 

Another  act  of  the  same  date. 

Act  of  February  8,  1875. 

Act  of  March  3,  1875. 

On  March  4,  1875,  the  Republican  party  lost  control  of  legisla- 
tion, and  did  not  regain  it  until  March  4,  1881.  Then  it  resumed 
business  for  two  years,  as  follows: 

Joint  resolution  of  March  11,  1882. 

Act  of  May  4,  1882. 

Act  of  December  23,  1882. 


36  TARIFF  HISTORY. 


Act  of  March  3,  1883. 
Another  act  of  the  same  date. 

On  March  4,  1883,  the  Republican  party  lost  control  of  legisla- 
tion until  March  4,  1889,  when  it  resumed  business  again,  with 
the  following  result: 

Act  of  February  18,  1890. 

Act  of  June  10,  1890. 

Act  of  October  1,  1890   (the  McKinley  law). 

Act  of  December  15,  1890. 

Act  of  March  3,  1893. 

Again  the  Republican  party  lost  control  of  legislation,  but 
resumed  on  March  4,  1897,  with  these  results: 

Act  of  July  24,  1897    (the  Din^ley  law). 
Another  act  of  the  same  date. 

Thus  it  appears  thi^t  in  forty-five  years  the  Republicans  have 
changed  or  revised  the  tariff  law  forty-eight  times.  Deducting 
from  forty-five  years  the  sixteen  years  that  the  Republicans  have 
not  controlled  legislation,  shows  that  in  twenty-nine  years  they 
tinkered  with  the  tariff  forty-eight  times  or  an  average  of  nearly 
once  every  seven  months. 

But  at  last  the  Republicans  and  their  allied  friends  and  pro- 
viders of  fat  campaign  barrels,  the  protected  monopolists,  having 
secured  a  measure  that  has  so  fostered  and  fattened  the  corpora- 
tions that  they  are  quite  willing  to  stand  pat,  especially  as  they 
have  succeeded  in  defeating  the  reciprocity  treaties,  to  provide 
for  which  the  tariff  schedules  were  purposely  increased  20  per 
cent,  heyond  the  rates  that  the  'protected  monopolists  named  as 
sufflcient  to  protect  them  from  competition. 

Hence  the  people  are  now  burdened  with  this  extra  rate  plus 
a  revenue  and  a  protective  rate — three  all  told. 

THE  TARIFF  LAW  OF  1897— KNOWN  AS  THE  DINGLEY 

TARIFF. 

The  present  tariff  law  of  1897  is  the  most  nearly  prohibitive  of 
any  such  fiscal  legislation  in  existence,  except  perhaps  the  new 
German  maximum  tariff  rates,  which  are  intended  to  prohibit 
other  countries  from  competing  in  the  German  market,  or  to 
compel  reciprocal  concessions  for  German  products  in  foreign 
markets.  The  facts  about  that  law  and  the  negotiations  between 
the  United  States  and  Germany  will  be  found  on  another  page. 

WHEN   REPUBLICANS  FRAME  TARIFFS,   DEMOCRATS  ARE 

EXCLUDED. 

When  the  Republican  members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  in  1897  undertook  the  work  of  revising  the  tariff,  they 
carefully  excluded  the  Democratic  members  from  participating, 
by  holding  their  meetings  at  the  Arlington  Hotel.  Notices  were 
sent  to  most  of  the  great  industrial  firms  and  corporations — many 
of  whom  were  trusts — that  if  they  would  submit  schedules  cover- 
ing their  particular  industry,  such  schedule  would  be  carefully 
considered.     The    result    was    that    the    hotel    was    for    months 


TARIFF  HISTORY.  .      37 


crowded  with  manufacturers,  agents  and  attorneys  representing 
special  industries;  and  the  committee  incorporated  in  the  present 
law  the  schedules  they  proposed,  with  but  few  changes. 

HOW   THE  TARIFF   RATES  \/VERE   INCREASED. 

President  McKinley  was,  of  course,  very  much  interested  in  the 
bill;  and  before  it  was  acted  upon  by  the  full  committee,  it  was 
submitted  for  his  inspection.  He  demanded  that  a  reciprocity 
clause  with  20  per  cent,  concession  be  added,  to  allow  reciprocity 
treaties  with  foreign  nations  to  be  negotiated;  so  that  the  drastic 
prohibitive  rates  might  be  modified  with  those  nations  who  were 
willing  to  make  similar  reductions  on  exports  from  this  country. 

The  ultra-protectionists  who  controlled  a  majority  of  the  com- 
mittee demurred  to  this  proposition.  But  one  of  the  arch  fiends 
of  protection  was  equal  to  the  occasion,  and  proposed  that  a 
general  increase  of  20  per  cent,  on  the  rates  on  manufactured 
goods  be  added  to  the  rates  already  agreed  on,  and  that  the 
reciprocity  feature,  sections  3  and  4,  then  be  added.  That  is 
practically  how  the  Dingley  bill  rates  became  so  exorbitant,  and 
virtually  led  to  the  swifter  organization  and  sheltering  of  the 
industrial  trusts  that  now  monopolize  the  output,  and  control  the 
price  of  about  all  the  necessaries  of  life.  The  people  who  were 
to  pay  the  taxes  had  no  advocates  there  to  defend  their  interests 
for,  as  previously  stated,  the  Democratic  members  of  the  com- 
mittee were  excluded  from  participating.  After  the  bill  had  been 
completed  a  meeting  of  the  whole  committee  was  called  together, 
and  the  bill  was  ordered  reported  by  a  party  vote.  A  special  rule 
was  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Rules,  the  debate  limited  to 
the  least  possible  time;  and  the  bill  was  passed. 

TARIFF   RATES  100  PER  CENT.  OR   MORE. 

As  it  is  impossible  to  publish  the  whole  tariff  bill  in  this  book 
on  account  of  the  space  it  would  occupy,  there  will  be  found  in 
the  Appendices  the  Recapitulation  of  dutiable  articles  imported 
into  the  United  States  upon  which  100  per  cent,  or  more  duty  was 
paid  during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1905. 

This  recapitulation  is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  entitled: 
"Imported  Merchandise  Entered  for  Consumption  in  the  United 
States  and  Duties  Collected  Thereon,  1905."  Following  that  will 
be  found  a  list  of  the  principal  articles  of  general  consumption 
on  which  less  than  100  per  cent,  was  collected,  taken  from  the 
same  official  report.  Following  that  will  be  found  the  "free  list." 
It  should  be  noted  that  every  article  not  named  in  the  free  list 
is  dutiable,  although  not  specifically  included  in  the  various 
schedules,  for  section  7  of  the  tariff  act  provides  that:  All  articles 
not  enumerated  in  the  bill  are  taxable  at  the  same  rate  as  similar 
articles,  and  when  composed  of  two  or  more  materials,  shall  pay 
the  rate  levied  on  the  article  which  it  most  resembles,  paying  the 
highest  rate  of  duty.  That  is  called  the  blanket  clause  so  that 
nothing  can  escape  paying  duty  unless  it  is  on  the  free  list. 


38  TARIFF  HISTORY. 


RECIPROCITY  DEFEATED. 

Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Dingley  bill,  there  was 
a  general  trend  towards  monopoly  by  the  favored  interests,  and 
the  organization  of  trusts  and  combines  at  once  began.  The  only 
fear  was  the  reciprocity  features  of  the  law  which,  if  put  in  effect, 
would  cut  down  trust  profits  20  per  cent,  on  such  articles  as  were 
included  in  reciprocity  treaties  and  in  the  case  of  some  products 
would  induce  large  importation,  unless  the  monopolists  would  be 
willing  to  reduce  their  prices  below  the  price  of  foreign  goods. 

President  McKinley,  in  good  faith,  appointed  J.  A.  Kasson  to 
negotiate  reciprocity  treaties;  and  he  successfully  did  so  with 
several  nations.  These  treaties  had  to  be  ratified  by  the  Senate 
(then,  as  now.  Republican)  which  requires  a  two-thirds  vote.  The 
protected  monopolists  were  powerful  enough  to  prevent  the  ratifi- 
cation of  those  treaties  through  their  friends,  the  Republican 
Senators;  so  the  tariff  rates  are  still  in  force  at  20  per  cent,  above 
what  was  originally  declared  by  the  protected  interests  them- . 
selves  as  sufficient  for  them  to  control  the  home  market. 

THE  TRUSTS   RAISE   PRICES. 

The  defeat  of  the  reciprocity  treaties  gave  a  new  impetus  to 
trust  organization;  and  at  once  prices  began  to  rise  on  manu- 
factured products. 

SHAW  LETS  THE  CAT  OUT  OF  THE  BAG. 

That  the  protective  tariff  is  the  mother  of  trusts  has  been 
admitted  by  the  highest  authority  in  the  United  States  on 
financial  matters  as  will  appear  from  the  following  extract  from 
a  speech  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Shaw,  made  August  19, 
1905,  at  Morrisville,  Vermont.     He  said: 

"The  protective  tariff  is  riot  the  mother  of  trusts,  though  it  is  the 
parent  of  conditions  that  makes  it  profitable  for  capital  to  combine." 

No  President  ever  required  his  cabinet  officers  to  be  in  such 
close  touch  with  him  on  all  public  questions  as  President  Roose- 
velt, and  the  speech  of  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  from  which 
the  above  extract  was  taken,  must  have  come  under  his  notice 
and  had  his  approval. 

Mr.  Havemeyer,  before  the  Industrial  Commission,  said  this: 

"Without  the  tariff  I  doubt  if  we  should  have  dared  to  take  the  risk 
of  forming  the  trust.  It  could  have  been  done;  but  I  certainly  should 
not  have  risked  all  I  had,  which  was  then  embarked  in  the  sugar 
business,  in  a  trust  unless  the  business  had  been  protected  as  it  was 
by    the    tariff." 

"Steel  rails  were  exported  at  the  time  the  steel  schedule  was  under 
discussion.  They  were  being  sent  to  England  and  Scotland.  They 
can  be  produced  for  $15  a  ton;  they  are  worth  $24  a  ton.  Now,  the 
reason  they  are  worth  $24  a  ton  is  because  the  people,  under  the  tariff, 
are  mulcted  for  the  difference.  I  am  not  talking  about  things  that 
are  ancient  history;  I  am  talking  about  things  that  exist.  I  am  not 
talking  as  to  whether  100  per  cent,  was  necessary  or  not.  I  am  talk- 
ing about  the  effect  of  the  tariff  today,  which  is  the  mother  of  these 
trusts  which  are  mulcting  the  people,  and  there  is  not  a  line  of  it  free 
from  this  abuse  today." 


THE  TRUSTS  AND  COMBINES.  8» 


THE  TRUSTS  AND  COMBINES. 

Does  the  tariff  foster  the  so-called  trusts  and  combinations? 

Have  these  trusts  and  combines  by  reason  of  the  shelter  of  the 
tariff  inordinately  advanced  the  prices  of  their  products? 

Do  the  trusts  sell  cheaper  to  foreigners  than  to  our  own  people? 

If  the  answer  to  these  questions  is  in  the  affirmative,  there  can 
be  no  question  but  that  the  tariff  should  be  revised. 

It  has  been  conclusively  shown  in  the  chapter  on  export  prices 
that  the  trusts  are  selling  cheaper  abroad  than  here,  so  that 
question  is  answered  in  the  affirmative  and  need  not  be  further 
considered. 

THE  TARIFF  FOSTERS  TRUSTS. 

The  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  the  present  tariff  law  has 
fostered  trusts,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following: 

In  Moody's  Manual  of  Industrial  and  Miscellaneous  Securities 
for  1900,  an  acknowledged  authority  on  the  organization  of  cor- 
porations, is  given  in  the  preface,  pages  51-53,  the  capitalization 
of  industrial  corporations,  incorporated  prior  to  January  1,  1898, 
and  from  that  date  to  January,  1900,  is  given  as  follows: 

INDUSTRIAL  CORPORATIONS  ORGANIZED  IN  THE  UNITED 

STATES.      MANUFACTURING— IRON,  STEEL, 

METALS  AND   MISCELLANEOUS. 

Prior  to  January  1,  1898,  total  all  states,  $811,161,300.  From 
January  1,  1898,  to  January,  1900,  total  all  states,  $5,059,309,911. 
An  increase  of  over  600  per  cent,  in  two  years.  Do  not  those 
figures  conclusively  show  that  the  Dingley  tariff  law,  fostered 
trusts,  or  how  can  such  an  enormous  increase  of  those  corpora- 
tions immediately  following  its  enactment,  which  are  protected 
by  the  tariff,  be  explained? 

The  evidence  is  irresistible  that  capital,  urged  on  by  trust 
promoters,  seeing  the  enormous  profits  possible  by  the  virtual 
monopoly  granted  by  the  tariff  law,  also  saw  that  if  the  manufac- 
turing plants  in  these  protected  industries  could  be  consolidated 
under  one  management  and  thus  prevent  competition  between 
them  in  the  United  States,  that  the  control  of  their  products  and 
the  control  of  prices  was  also  possible.  In  fact  monopolies  could 
be  created  and  the  consumers  be  plundered.  In  other  words  the 
tariff  having,  in  a  great  measure,  eliminated  competition  from 
abroad,  through  imports,  the  trusts  have  also  eliminated  com- 
petition at  home  through  combinations. 

In  the  United  States  Statistical  Abstract,  1905,  on  page  541,  is 
given  the  value  per  capita  of  the  "leading  classes  of  necessary 
articles  of  daily  consumption  from  July  1,  1860,  to  January  1, 
1906,"  from  which  the  following  is  taken: 

Metals.  Clothing.  Misc. 

On  July  1,  1897 $11,642  $13,808  $12,288 

On  January  1,  1906 17.141  19.313  18.809 

Increased  cost  per  capita  per  cent 47.  40.  53. 


40  THE  TRUSTS  AND  COMBINES. 

This  shows  an  average  increase  in  prices  since  the  trusts  have 
been  organized  of  about  47  per  cent,  which  is  very  close  to  the 
average  rate  of  duty  collected  by  the  Government  on  all  imports 
for  the  year  1904,  which  was  48.78  per  cent.  But  this  percentage 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  average  tax  imposed  by  all  the 
tariff  schedules  which  exceeds  50  per  cent,  and  on  manufactured 
products  averages  over  70  per  cent. 

As  importers  cannot  import  foreign  products  without  paying 
freight,  costs  and  import  duties,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the 
trusts  charging  very  nearly  what  the  imported  goods  can  be  sold 
for  here.  All  that  was  necessary  was  to  eliminate  competition 
amon^  the  manufacturers  in  the  United  States,  and  that  has  been 
accomplished,  by  the  organization  of  the  trusts  and  combines. 
That  the  trusts  have  thus  increased  their  profits,  to  a  great  extent, 
is  shown  by  the  increased  price  they  are  obtaining  for  their 
products  since  the  present  tariff  bill  became  a  law  in  1897. 

Do  not  these  facts  and  figures  answer  affirmatively  the  three 
questions  asked  above  and  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  the  passage 
of  the  Dingley  act  not  only  fostered  trusts,  but  protects  them  in 
advancing  prices  and  has  allowed  them  to  sell  cheaper  abroad 
than  at  home.  Therefore  why  should  the  present  tariff  law  not 
be  revised  to  at  least  the  extent  of  reducing  the  trust  protection 
so  that  resumption  of  a  healthy  competition  from  abroad  will 
compel  a  reduction  of  trust  prices  on  necessities? 

TRUSTS  INCORPORATED  AND  UNINCORPORATED. 

All  the  trusts  are  not  incorporated  companies;  there  are 
innumerable  price  and  rate-fixing  agreements,  profit-sharing 
pools,  selling  or  buying  agencies,  product  restricting  agreements, 
etc.,  of  which  the  beef  trust  is  a  notorious  example.  There  are, 
however,  287  industrial  combinations  or  trusts  incorporated,  of 
which  168  marked  in  the  table  of  trusts  with  an  X  which  enjoy 
direct  tariff  benefits  in  more  or  less  degree,  and  38  others  marked 
with  an  asterisk  probably  receive  some  benefit  from  the  tariff. 
The  products  of  most  of  the  remaining  trusts  are  on  the  tariff 
list,  but  their  protection  is  more  or  less  nominal.  Of  this  list  21 
derive  their  monopoly  chiefly  from  patent  rights  and  28  are  based 
on  municipal  or  other  franchises,  rights  of  way,  etc.,  19  are  based 
on  control  of  coal  and  other  lands,  mines,  ore  deposits,  etc., 
exclusively.  The  balance  of  the  unprotected  trusts  have  in  most 
cases  some  other  element  of  monopoly  which  contributes  to  their 
strength.  When  the  element  of  monopoly  is  small  the  general 
financial  standing  of  the  trust  is  relatively  weak  in  nearly  all 
eases. 

The  table  of  trusts  in  the  appendices  also  includes,  besides 
industrial  combinations,  the  large  security  holding  (but  not 
operating)  companies  in  the  gas,  electric  light,  electric  and  steam 
railroad  industries.  Hence  a  security-holding  company,  or  "trust" 
such  as  the  Bay  State  Gas  Company,  is  included  in  the  list,  but 
the  Consolidated  Gas  Company  of  New  York  is  omitted.  The 
many  consolidated  transportation  and  other  franchise  corpora- 
tions, not  embraced  in  this  list,  such  as  railroad,  traction,  lighting 
and  water  combinations  would  aggregate  in  capitalization  many 


A  TYPICAL  TRUST. 


THE  TRUSTS^  AND  COMBINES.  41 

billions  of  dollars.  The  list,  however,  is  limited  to  what  are 
popularly  known  as  "industrial  trusts"  and  are  all  consolidations 
or  absorptions  of  one  kind  or  another. 

its  total  capitalization  being  approximately  $1,500,000,000.  It  is 
a  true  typical  trust,  a  trust  in  the  original  sense  of  the  word, 
because,  as  Prof.  H.  L.  Wilgus  of  the  University  of  Michigan  has 
shown,  it  holds  as  a  trustee  the  shares  of  the  various  constituent 
companies  and  votes  for  directors  of  the  constituent  concerns. 
Yet  this  trust  has  never  been  prosecuted  or  disturbed  by  the 
administration.  Every  person  in  the  United  States  pays  tribute 
to  this  gigantic  corporation,  for  it  controls  the  price  of  everything 
that  is  manufactured  of  steel,  which  everyone  is  compelled  to  use. 

THE  STEEL  TRUST  ANALYZED. 

In  Moody's  Magazine  for  September,  a  reliable  financial  maga- 
zine, there  is  an  article  on  the  steel  trust,  from  which  the  follow- 
ing is  taken: 

Before  the  Carnegie  Steel  Company  became  a  part  of  the  great  Steel 
Corporation,  and  while  Mr.  H.  C.  Frick  had  an  option  on  it  at  about 
half  the  price  paid  by  the  trust,  its  net  earnings  exceeded  $30,000,000 
a  year.  Now  we  have  a  single  industrial  concern  with  net  earnings 
of  over  $40,000,000,  not  for  an  entire  year,  but  for  a  quarter  of  a  year 
only.  Its  net  earnings  for  the  first  half  of  the  present  year  were 
$76,759,523,  or  at  the  rate  of  over  $150,000,000  a  year.  From  this 
$76,759,523  was  deducted  $3,217,578  for  sinking  funds;  $9,674,168 
for  depreciation  and  reserve  funds ;  $5,500,000  for  a  special  improve- 
ment and  replacement  fund;  $11,459,833  for  interest,  and  $23,500,000 
for  additional  construction.  The  total  deductions  amounted  to 
$53,351,579,  leaving  a  Balance  of  $23,407,944.  After  paying  dividends 
of  $12,609,838  on  the  preferred  and  $5,083,025  on  the  common  stock, 
there  were  left  $5,715,081  of  undivided  earnings  for  the  half  year. 

The  1905  report  gives  in  itemized  statement  of  the  "Rolled  and 
Other  Finished  Products  for  Sale."  The  total  number  of  tons  was 
9,226,386.  Allowing  $35,000,000  for  earnings  and  sales  outside  of 
rolled  and  other  finished  products,  it  would  appear  that  these  products 
sold  for  $550,000,000,  or  an  average  of  $60  a  ton.  This  is  an  ab- 
surdly high  price.  Much  more  than  one-third  of  the  total  tonnage 
was  sold  for  less  than  $30  per  ton.  Probably  not  one-fourth  sold  for 
more  than  $40,  and  not  one-tenth  at  more  than  $50  per  ton.  Experi- 
enced iron  and  steel  men  say  that  the  average  price  per  ton  is  not 
much,  if  any,  above  $40.  The  total  gross  sales  of  iron  and  steel,  to 
outsiders,  then,  amounted  to  only  about  $400,000,000  in  1905.  Adding 
$35,000,000  for  other  possible  earnings  and  sales,  we  have  $435,000,000, 
instead  of  $585,000,000,  as  the  total  of  actual  gross  receipts.  De- 
ducting the  net  profits  of  $119,787,658  and  the  selling  and  general 
expenses,  and  other  operating  expenses  (taxes,  $3,646,489.60), 
amounting  in  all  to  about  $25,000,000,  we  find  that  the  actual  manu- 
facturing and  producing  cost  of  the  product  sold  was  at  a  liberal 
estimate,  only  about  $300,000,000,  instead  of  $440,013,432,  as  stated 
in  the  report. 

TARIFF  PRODUCTS   DISGUISED. 

Now,  if  net  profits  are  $120,000,000  on  goods  that  cost  $440,000,000 
to  produce,  the  rate  of  profit  is  about  27  per  cent.  If  the  goods  cost 
but  $300,000,000,  the  rate  of  profit  is  40  per  cent,  on  first  cost.  A 
profit  of  even  27  per  cent,  looks  bad  enough  to  a  nation  that  is  taxing 


42  THE  TRUSTS^  AND  COMBINES. 

itself  heavily  in  order  to  give  a  tariff  bonus  to  this  profit-earning  in- 
dustry. A  profit  of  40  per  cent,  would,  if  clearly  exhibited  to  the  tax- 
paying  people,  be  likely  to  prejudice  them  against  this  particular 
protected  corporation  and,  perhaps,  to  bring  the  tariff  question  again 
into  politics.  This  might  result  unfortunately  for  the  Steel  Cor- 
poration and  for  its  good  friends,  the  "stand-patters." 

Undoubtedly  the  real  object  of  padding  the  sales  and  costs  of  steel 
products  is  to  disguise  the  tariff  profits.  That  the  people  will,  how- 
ever, soon  take  up  the  tariff  question  again  and  that,  when  they  do 
take  it  up,  they  will  make  trouble  for  the  protected  "Steel  Trust,"  is 
reasonably  certain.  In  fact,  the  platforms  now  being  adopted  in  the 
different  States  and  the  speeches  being  made  by  leading  politicians 
nave  an  ominous  sound  to  stockholders  of  this  corporation.  Appar- 
ently this  "giant  infant"  will  occupy  the  center  of  the  stage  when  tne 
next  tariff  play  is  put  on  at  Washington.  It  is  clearly  entitled  to  this 
pre-eminence.  It  has  probably  been  more  influential  in  preventing 
tariff  revision,  during  the  last  four  years,  than  has  any  half  dozen 
other  corporations. 

Those  behind  the  political  scenes  know  that  its  word  has  great 
weight  with  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House.  If  the 
head  of  this  corporation  writes  a  letter  to  Congressman  Dalzell,  of 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  advising  Chairman  Payne  and  the 
others  of  the  committee  not  to  open  up  the  tariff  question  for  any 
purpose  or  in  any  way,  the  committee  may  confidently  be  expected  to 
"stand  pat." 

EXPORT   PRICES  OF  STEEL. 

With  tariff  duties  removed  from  "all  trust  products  sold  cheaper  to 
foreigners  than  to  Americans,"  as  the  politicians  put  it,  the  common 
stock  of  the  Steel  Corporation  would  have  value  only  for  voting  pur- 
poses. That  this  is  true  is  evident  when  it  is  realized  that  the  tariff 
profits  of  this  corporation  vary  from  about  $40,000,000  to  $80,000,000 
a  year.  These  may  be  roughly  estimated  by  the  difference  between  the 
export  and  home  prices  of  goods  sold.  Although,  as  stated  by  Chair- 
man Gary  to  the  Committee  on  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries,  a  few 
months  ago,  and  as  stated  in  the  1905  report,  "the  prices  received  for 
exports  during  the  year  were  materially  in  excess  of  those  previously 
received  and  approached  more  closely  domestic  prices,"  yet  active  iron 
and  steel  brokers  and  jobbers  say  that  the  present  difference  will 
average  about  $5  per  ton  on  all  goods  sold  by  the  Steel  Corporation. 
They  say,  however,  that  export  prices  are  so  well  covered  up,  vary  so 
greatly  to  different  countries,  and  fluctuate  so  widely  and  uncertainly 
from  day  to  day,  that  but  very  few  persons  can  estimate  the  difference 
closely. 

All  goods  sold  abroad  are  sold  through  the  United  States  Steel 
Products  Export  Company,  whose  stock  is  owned  by  the  Federal  Steel 
Company  of  the  Steel  Corporation.  Much  of  the  business  is  done 
through  its  London  office. 

On  most  of  the  goods  sold  abroad  prices  are  quoted  delivered  in 
loreign  ports.  This  selling  company  contracts  in  advance  for  tonnage 
on  lines  going  to  different  foreign  countries.  Hence  it  can  nearly 
always  quote  relatively  lower  prices  delivered  in  foreign  ports  than 
for  export  from  New  York.  The  prices  quoted  vary  with  the  amount 
of  any  particular  product  to  be  disposed  of  abroad  and  the  foreign  de- 
mand for  this  product.  The  prices  quoted  also  depend  upon  the  kind 
of  international  agreement  existing  as  to  the  sale  of  any  particular 
product  in  any  particular  port. 

INTERNATIONAL  STEEL  AGREEMENTS. 

For  instance,  an  international  agreement  exists  between  the  manu- 
facturers of  steel  rails  in  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  Germany, 
France  and  Belgium,  which  practically  reserves  the  two  American 
continents  to  our  manufacturers,  except  that,  as  Canada  gives  heavy 
preferential  duties  to  Great  Britain,  our  manufacturers  can  sell  in 


THE  TRUSTS^  AND  COMBINES.  43 


Canada  only  by  cutting  the  English  prices  20  or  25  per  cent.  Vir- 
tually the  most  of  the  world  is  divided  up  between,  and  partitioned  off 
by,  the  world's  steel  rail  manufacturers.  Hence  there  is,  today,  but 
little  competition  in  the  sale  of  rails  in  any  part  of  the  earth.  This  is 
one  of  the  reasons  why  there  is  now  so  little  difference  between  export 
and  home  prices — although  this  difference  will  still  average  about  $5 
per  ton,  in  the  opinion  of  experts.  This  is  also  one  of  the  reasons  why 
Chairman  Gary  was  so  anxious  to  testify  as  to  export  prices  last 
spring.  Similar  international  agreements,  though,  perhaps,  less 
formal  and  definite,  are  said  to  exist  between  the  manufacturers  of 
plates,  billets  and  other  products. 

ESTIMATE  OF   TARIFF  PROFITS. 

As  the  total  sales  of  iron  and  steel  by  the  Steel  Corporation  exceed 
9,000,000  tons  a  year,  a  difference  of  even  $4.50  a  ton,  between  export 
and  domestic  prices,  amounts  to  over  $40,000,000.  Two  years  ago  the 
average  difference  loas  not  much  less  thorn,  $10  a  ton.  Of  course,  the 
total  sales  then  were  less  than  now.  Even  then,  the  difference,  esti- 
mated on  the  total  tonnage,  was  about  $80,000,000.  On  some  products 
the  difference  still  exceeds  $10  a  ton,  or  14  cent  per  pound.  The  fact 
that  our  exports  of  iron  and  steel  are  increasing  rapidly  indicates  that 
the  export  business  is  very  profitable.  For  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1906,  our  exports  of  iron  and  steel  amounted  to  1,330,870  gross  tons. 
The  value  of  exports  of  iron  and  steel  and  manufactures  thereof 
amounted  to  $160,984,985,  which  exceeded  the  exports  of  any  previous 
year  by  more  than  $25,000,000.  That  there  is  ample  margin  for  profits 
on  steel  rails,  even  at  $23  a  ton,  is  evident  from  statements  made  by 
Mr.  Charles  M.  Schwab,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Frick,  just  before  the  Steel 
Corporation  was  formed,  and  by  statements  made  when  the  last  quar- 
terly report  was  made  public  by  the  directors  of  the  corporation.  Mr. 
Schwab  then  said  that  steel  rails  cose  less  than  $12  per  ton  to  pro- 
duce. Apparently  the  statement  is  now  informally  authorized  that 
the  new  methods  and  processes  introduced  by  the  Steel  Corporation 
have  reduced  the  cost  of  making  steel  $2  a  ton. 

FAVORITISM  TO   FOREIGNERS. 

There  is  no  sound  economic  reason  why  our  manufactured  products, 
and  especially  those  protected  by  high  tariff  duties,  should  be  sold 
cheaper  to  foreigners  than  to  Americans.  Steel  is  the  greatest  of  all 
raw  materials  for  manufacturing  purposes.  Hundreds  of  important 
industries  consume  large  quantities  of  it.  A  difference  of  from  $5  to 
$10  a  ton  for  steel  means  the  difference  between  success  and  failure 
for  many  manufacturers.  Our  manufacturers  of  machinery,  imple- 
ments ai^d  tools  are,  in  equity,  entitled  to  as  low  prices  as  are  given 
by  our  steel  manufacturers.  Our  farmers  should  pay  no  more  for 
fence  wire,  wire  nails  and  tin  plate  than  is  paid  by  their  foreign  com- 
petitors in  South  America  and  Australasia.  This  un-American,  sui- 
cidal policy  has  driven  hundreds  of  millions  of  capital  out  of  this 
country.  It  has  gone  into  plants  in  foreign  countries,  where  our  steel 
and  other  products  can  be  purchased  more  cheaply  than  in  our  own 
markets.  President  McKinley,  a  year  or  two  before  he  died,  became 
convinced  of  the  evils  of  this  export  system,  and  was  taking  steps  to 
remedy  them.  Some  of  the  government  reports  published  in  1900 
severely  condemn  the  practices  of  the  manufacturers  of  steel  rails, 
beams,  plates,  wire,  wire  nails,  etc.,  for  charging  our  consumers  20  or 
30  per  cent,  more  for  their  goods  than  they  charge  foreigners  for  the 
same  goods.  Notice  was,  in  this  way,  served  upon  these  manufac- 
turers that  if  they  did  not  reform  they  could  expect  to  lose  their 
tariff  protection. 


44  EXPORT  PRICES. 


EXPORT  PRICES. 

HOW  THE  TRUSTS  SELL  CHEAPER  ABROAD  THAN   HERE. 

In  the  campaigns  of  1902  and  1904  the  Republicans  persisted  in 
denying,  both  in  their  campaign  books  for  those  years  and  in 
Congress,  that  the  tariff  protected  combines  and  associations, 
commonly  called  trusts,  were  selling  their  products  cheaper  in 
foreign  countries  than  in  the  United  States.  The  evidence,  how- 
ever, published  in  the  Democratic  campaign  books  for  1902  and 
1904  so  conclusively  proved  the  truth  of  the  statements  that  the 
Republican  leaders  in  Congress  have  been  forced  since  to  publicly 
admit  the  fact.  These  admissions  indicate  how  closely  the 
Republicans  are  allied  with  the  trusts  and  protected  monopolists, 
for  they  now  openly  defend  the  plundering  of  the  American  people 
through  the  sale  of  trust  products  cheaper  abroad  than  here  by 
virtue  of  the  restriction  of  competition  by  excessive  import  duties. 

The  first  authoritative  admission  was  made  by  Mr.  Dalzell  in  a 
speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  May  26,  1906, 
which  was  published  in  the  Congressional  Record  on  May  26th, 
pages  7643-56.  As  Mr.  Dalzell  represents  Pittsburg,  Pennsylvania, 
in  the  American  Congress,  and  is  entirely  competent  to  speak  for 
the  conditions  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry,  his  admission  shows 
that  the  protectionists  have  concluded  that  it  is  no  longer 
desirable  to  deny  the  actual  conditions. 

THE  CHEAPEST  IRON  AND  STEEL. 

ft 
During   that    speech    of    Mr.    Dalzell    the    following    colloquy 

occurred : 

Mr.  Underwood — "Will  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  allow 
rae  to  ask  a  question,  not  so  much  as  to  where  we  sell  our  goods,  but 
how  we  make  our  goods?  Can  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
name  me  any  steel  mill  in  the  world  that  can  make  steel  rails  cheaper 
than  they  are  made  at  Pittsburg?  Can  the  gentleman  frpm  Penn- 
sylvania name  me  any  iron  furnace  in  the  world  that  can  make  pig 
iron  cheaper  than  at  Birmingham  V 

Mr.  Dalzell— "I  think  not;  and  I  am  coming  to  that  question,  if 
the  gentleman  \\ill  have  patience,  in  a  few  moments." 

Mr.  Underwood — "Do  we  need  protection  to  protect  us  against  the 
market  that  we  can  meet  cheaper  than  anybody  else  ?" 

Mr.  Dalzell — "I  will  answer  the  gentleman's  question  in  due  course 
if  he  will  have  the  patience." 

That  question  was  never  answered  by  Mr.  Dalzell,  to  answer 
it  truthfully  would  at  once  break  down  the  whole  theory  of  the 
protectionists,  because  if  steel  can  be  manufactured  cheaper  at 
Pittsburg  than  anywhere  else,  and  iron  in  Birmingham  cheaper 
than  elsewhere,  there  can  be  no  excuse  for  a  protective  tariff  on 
such  products,  either  to  protect  the  manufacturers  or  the  laboring 
men  employed  in  those  industries;  for  no  one  can  successfully 
compete  with  them.  But  Mr.  Dalzell  continued  the  discussion  by 
saying: 


EXPORT  PRICES.  45 


REPUBLICAN    LEADERS    ADMIT    SELLING    CHEAPER 
ABROAD  THAN    HERE. 

"Do  we  sell  goods  cheaper  abroad  than  we  do  at  home?  Un- 
doubtedly, sometimes — certain  kinds  of  goods — the  kind  of  goods  the 
sale  of  which  promises  us  a  foothold  in  a  foreign  market,  and  to  a 
limited  extent,  to  wit,  to  the  extent  of  our  surplus.  Why?  Well, 
for  a  number  of  reasons — all  of  them  patent  to  business  men.  The 
first  and  foremost,  because  our  home  production  exceeds  our  home 
consumption;  and  the  excess  of  production  must  be  sold  in  a  foreign 
market  or  our  factories  and  our  workmen  remain  during  a  portion 
of  each  year  idle." 

This  acknowledgment  of  the  Democratic  claim  that  the  trusts 
are  selling  cheaper  abroad  than  here  of  "certain  kinds  of  goods" — 
those  goods  of  course  that  the  steel  trust  and  other  combines  can 
manufacture  cheaper  here  than  similar  goods  can  be  manufac- 
tured abroad,  was  followed  by  another  astounding  admission  by 
Mr.  Dalzell,  which  will  be  found  on  the  same  page  of  the  Record, 
as  follows: 

Mr.  Dalzell — "We  have  in  this  country,  by  reason  of  the  skill  of  our 
workmen,  by  reason  of  our  general  prosperity,  by  reason  of  our  in- 
ventive genius,  by  reason  of  our  improved  machinery,  arrived  at  a 
period  when  Ave  can  make  in  this  country  on  an  average  of  nine 
months  all  that  the  country  can  consume  in  the  year. 

"It  is  a  plain  business  proposition  whether  or  not  we  shall  run 
the  year  round  and  sell  all  of  our  goods  in  any  market,  or  whether 
we  shall  run  nine  months  and  close  up  our  factories  the  other  three. 
But  that  is  not  the  only  reason.  Another  reason  is  because,  in  order 
to  gain  a  foothold  in  foreign  markets,  the  price  must  he  regulated  so 
as  to  meet  the  price  in  the  foreign  market  with  which  we  come  in 
competition.  And  anotlier  reason  is  because,  in  our  contest  for  en- 
trance into  the  world's  markets,  we  have  to  encounter  a  system  of 
tariffs,  of  syndicates,  of  cartels,  of  hounties,  all  of  which  w^re  made 
for  the  purpose  of  excluding  us  from  those  markets." 

This  further  acknowledgment  that  the  trusts  "can  produce  in 
this  country,  on  an  average  of  nine  months,  all  that  the  country 
can  consume  in  the  year,"  show^s  that  about  one-fourth  of  trust 
products,  or  the  products  of  three  months  of  our  manufacturing, 
must  he  sold  abroad  unless  our  factories  and  workshops  are  shut 
down  for  three  months  out  of  the  twelve  months;  although  further 
along  in  his  speech  Mr.  Dalzell  mad^A  labored  argument  to  prove 
that  the  amount  of  goods  sold  abroad  cheaper  than  here  only 
amounted  to  three-tenths  of  one  per  cent,  of  our  total  manufac- 
tures. He  quotes  Senator  Gallinger,  another  ardent  protectionist, 
and  not  a  reliable  statistician,  as  his  authority.  Senator  Gallinger 
obtained  his  estimate  from  the  partisan  majority  report  of  the 
Industrial  Commission;  but  Hon.  Thomas  W.  Phillips,  Republican 
member  of  the  Commission,  made  a  supplemental  report  in  which 
he  very  severely  attacked  the  majority  report  for  suggesting  that 
three-tenths  of  one  per  cent,  is  a  fair  estimate  of  the  amount  sold 
cheaper  abroad  than  here. 

INDUSTRIAL  COMMISSION    REPORT. 

But  what  did  the  Industrial  Commission  say  several  years  since 
on  this  subject?  Its  conclusions  will  be  found  as  to  export  prices 
in  volume  19,  on  pages  626-7,  as  follows: 

"In  about  20  per  cent,  of  the  cases  covered  by  the  Commission's 
returns  the  export  prices  have  ruled  lower  than  those  charged  to 
home  consumers.     The  practice  is  quite  common  in  all  countries,  etc. 


46  EXPORT  PRICES. 


"That  in  view  of  the  extent  and  protection  of  our  manufacturers,  of 
our  growing  export  trade  and  the  sharp  competition  being  encoun- 
tered in  foreign  markets,  of  the  practice  by  some  exporters  of  making 
lower  prices  abroad  than  at  home,  and  the  desirability  of  protecting 
the  consumer  as  well  as  the  producer,  without  awaiting  other  legis- 
lation, the  Congress  provide  for  a  commission  to  investigate  and 
study  the  subject  and  to  report  as  soon  as  possible  what  concessions 
in  duties  may  be  made  vnthout  endangering  wages  or  employment 
at  home,  what  advantages  abroad  may  be  obtained  therefor,  and  also 
to  suggest  measures  best  suited  to  gain  the  end  desired." 

Note,  that  this  non-partisan  body  with  a  majority  of  its  mem- 
bers Republican  does  not  say  "whether  concessions"  shall  be  made 
or  not,  but  ''what  concessions,"  for  that  some  concessions  must 
be  made  is  evidently  their  opinion  and  recommendation.  But  the 
Republican  party  has  paid  no  heed  to  the  recommendations  of  the 
Commission  of  its  own  creation  although  over  seven  years  have 
elapsed. 

Hon.  Thomas  W.  Phillips,  did  not  sign  this  majority  report,  but 
in  his  supplemental  report  he  said: 

FOUR-FIFTHS   OF   EXPORTERS    FAIL   TO   ANSWER   AS   TO 
EXPORT  PRICES. 

"There  are  a  large  number  of  industries  in  which  it  is  in  evidence 
that  the  domestic  price  is  much  higher  than  the  export  price.  I  do 
not  agree  that  the  answers  to  inquiries  addressed  by  the  Commission 
to  exporters  indicate  that  the  trusts  are  not  chargeable  with  this 
practice  to  any  serious  extent.  Out  of  2,000  schedules  of  inquiries 
sent  out,  there  were  received  only  416  replies,  and  only  a  very  few 
of  these  replies  came  from  corporations  known  popularly  as  trusts. 
(Vol.  XIII,  p.  726.)  The  fact  that  about  75  answers  indicated  lower 
prices  abroad  than  at  home  is  significant,  when  it  is  noted  that  more 
than  four-fifths  of  those  addressed  failed  to  answer,  and  that  natur- 
ally those  who  are  chargeable  with  such  discrimination  would  be  the 
ones  who  would  decline  to  reply. 

"Several  witnesses  before  the  Commission  on  behalf  of  the  trusts 
admitted  that  their  export  prices  were  lower  than  their  domestic 
prices,  but  they  contended  that  this  was  necessary  in  order  to  work 
off  their  surplus  and  to  keep  their  establishments  running  full  time, 
and  that  the  fact  that  their  surplus  products  could  also  be  worked 
off  by  lower  prices  at  home,  and  that  it  is  the  tariff  which  en- 
courages them  to  cause  a  domestic  surplus  hy  restricting  domestic 
consumption  thr'ough  high  prices." 

Why  did  four-fifths  of  the  exporters  fail  or  refuse,  though 
called  on,  to  answer?  Because  they  would  evidently  have  been 
compelled  to  admit  that  they  were  selling  their  surplus  products 
cheaper  to  foreigners  than  to  our  own  people. 


SENATOR   ALDRICH   ADMITS   IT. 

But  we  have  another  Republican,  a  much  greater  authority 
than  Mr.  Dalzell,  who  at  least  also  acknowledges  that  the  trusts 
sell  cheaper  abroad  than  here.  When  Senator  Bacon,  of  Georgia, 
was  making  his  great  speech  on  the  question  of  restricting  the 
purchase  of  supplies  for  the  Panama  Canal  to  the  products  of 
this  country,  he  proposed  an  amendment  requiring  that  no  greater 
price  should  be  paid  than  similar  supplies  were  being  sold  for 
export  to  foreign  countries.    This  speech  will  be  found  in  the 


EXPORT  PRICES.  47 


Congressional  Record,  June  2,  1906,  on  pages  7943-6.  During  its 
delivery  Senator  Bacon  yielded  to  Senator  Aldrich,  of  Rhode 
Island,  the  Republican  leader  of  the  Senate,  who  said: 

"It  is  a  well  known  fact,  about  which  there  is  no  dispute,  that 
producers  in  the  United  States  and  in  every  one  of  the  great  in- 
dustrial nations  sell  portions  of  their  products  from  time  to  time 
at  a  less  price  to  people  of  other  countries  than  to  their  regular 
customers  at  home." 

Thus  we  have  the  Republican  leader  in  the  Senate,  and  one  of 
the  Republican  leaders  of  the  House  of  Representatives  acknowl- 
edging the  truth  of  the  Democratic  contention  that  the  trusts  sell 
cheaper  abroad  than  here.  Of  course  they  tried  to  qualify  their 
statement  so  as  to  take  the  sting  out  of  it,  but  that  was  to  be 
expected  from  such  strong  partisans  and  protectionists  with  close 
trust  connections. 

SECRETARY  SHAW  ALSO  ADMITS  IT. 

On  page  19  of  the  Republican  National  Campaign  Book  of  1904, 
Mr.  Shaw,  Secretary  ol  the  Treasury,  who  of  course  is  the  best 
Republican  authority  on  the  tariff  because  such  fiscal  matters  are 
under  the  control  of  his  department,  is  quoted  as  saying: 

"Our  opponents  lay  much  stress  upon  the  fact  that  some  American 
manufactures  are  sold  abroad  cheaper  than  at  home.  Our  friends 
sometimes  deny  this,  and  they  sometimes  apologize  for  it,  and  a  few 
in  times  past  have  downed  our  opponents  in  recommending  a  re- 
moval of  tariff  from  all  such  articles.  It  is  useless  to  deny,  in  my 
judgment,  unwise  to  apologize,  and  a  little  short  of  foolishness  to 
attempt  to  remedy  the  assumed  evil  in  the  manner  proposed  by  the 
opposition." 

BABCOCK   (REP.)   GIVES   EVIDENCE. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Representative  Babcock,  who  was 
chairman  of  the  Republican  Congressional  Committee  from  1894 
to  1904,  introduced  a  bill  in  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress  to  revise 
the  steel  schedules,  gave  evidence  in  an  interview  in  the  Wash- 
ington Post,  September  21,  1901,  which  said: 

"One  of  the  points  which  impressed  me  of  the  desirability  of  re- 
vising the  steel  schedule  was  information  I  obtained  in  Scotland  of 
the  placing  of  an  order  for  20,000  tons  of  American  steel.  When 
you  stop  to  think  that  20,000  tons  of  steel  mean  more  than  1,000 
carloads,  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  such  an  order  placed  abroad  by 
our  manufacturers  is  only  their  surplus  product." 


48  OOVERNMENT  IN  PARTNERSHIP  WITH  MONOPOLIEi^. 

THE  GOVERNMENT  IN  PARTNERSHIP  WITH 
"MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS." 

AMERICAN     PRODUCTS    SOLD    CHEAPER    ABROAD    THAN 

AT  HOME. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Wilmot,  President  of  the  Wilmot  &  Hobbs  Manufac- 
turing Company,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  wrote  to  the  Iron  Age,  May, 
1901,  a  letter  on  this  subject  which,  in  part,  reads: 

"To  the  Editor:  ^ 

"Noticing  that  you  have  giyen  considerable  prominence  in  recent 
issues  to  the  organization  of  the  Manufacturers'  Association" of  Bridge- 
port, and  to  the  end  that  the  manufacturers'  associations  of  other  cities 
and  other  manufacturers  in  other  cities  where  manufacturers'  associa- 
tions are  in  process  of  formation  or  are  contemplated,  we  would  sug- 
gest that  you  give  due  prominence  to  the  position  which  these  manu- 
facturing associations  in  the  various  cities,  particularly  along  the 
Atlantic  seaboard  and  Canadian  border,  and  especially  in  New  Eng- 
land, are  taking  as  regards  their  present  handicap  in  the  cost  of  raw 
material,  such  as  coal,  coke,  iron,  ore,  pig  iron,  steel  ingots  and  billets, 
and  their  desire  to  have  these  commodities  placed  by  Congress  imme- 
diately upon  the  free  list. 

THEY  BELIEVE  THAT  AS  THESE  MATERIALS  ARE  PRO- 
DUCED CHEAPER  IN  THIS  COUNTRY  THAN  IN  ANY  OTHER 
PORTION  OF  THE  WORLD,  AND  ARE  SOLD  ABROAD  AT  LOWER 
PRICES  THAN  ALONG  THE  SEABOARD  AND  CANADIAN  BOR- 
DER, THE  INDUSTRIES  WHICH  PRODUCE  THEM  ARE  NQ 
LONGER  INFANT  AND  DO  NOT  NEED  PROTECTION.  THEY 
BELIEVE  THAT  PROTECTION,  SO  CALLED,  IS  BUT  ANOTHER 
TERM  FOR  GOVERNMENT  ASSISTANCE  TO  MONOPOLIES  AND 
TRUSTS.  THIS  POSITION  THE  GOVERNMENT  AS  IT  NOW 
EXISTS  CAN  ILL  AFFORD  TO  ASSUME,  NOR  CAN  IT  ALLOW 
THE  PEOPLE  TO  FEEL  THAT  IT  IS  DRIFTING  INTO  SUCH 
POSITION  WHERE  IT  IS  SO  WORKING  HAND  IN  HAND  WITH 
GIGANTIC  TRUSTS ;  FOR  WHEN  THE  PEOPLE  REALIZE  SUCH 
TO  BE  THE  CONDITION,  THEY  WILL  UNDOUBTEDLY  RISE  IN 
THEIR  MIGHT,  AND  BY  THEIR  VOTES  CHANGE  THE  CON- 
DITIONS AND  THE  GOVERNMENT  WHICH  PERMITS  SUCH 
CONDITIONS.  *  *  *  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  will  appreciate  the  position  and  make  such  changes  in 
tariff  regulations  or  duties  from  time  to  time  as  will  result  in  putting 
upon  the  free  list  such  commodities  as  do  not  further  need  protection 
on  the  score  of  their  being  infant  industries." — Industrial  Com.  Rept., 
Byrom  W.  Holt's  testimony. 


FURTHER  EVIDENCE  PRODUCED.  49 

FURTHER  EVIDENCE  PRODUCED. 

EXPERT  EVIDENCE  ON    DUMPING. 

It  would  seem  almost  unnecessary  to  take  more  space  to  further 
prove  that  most  of  the  trusts  sell  cheaper  to  foreigners  than  to 
our  own  people,  but  as  at  least  three  speeches  were  made  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  denying  the  proposition,  namely  by 
Grosvenor,  of  Ohio;  Boutell,  of  Illinois,  and  Hepburn,  of  Iowa, 
who  substantially  stated  that  we  only  sell  shop-worn  and  obsolete 
goods  cheaper  in  Europe  than  we  are  selling  them  at  home.  The 
following  evidence  is  added: 

SfEEL     RAILS    SOLD    40    PER     CENT.    CHEAPER    ABROAD 
TttAN    HERE. 

Senator  Bacon  in  his  speech  above  quoted  introduced  two  letters 
addressed  to  him  personally,  the  writers  of  which  he  stated  "were 
known  to  him  personally  and  the  accuracy  of  their  statements 
can  be  most  thoroughly  and  confidently  vouched  for."  They  are 
published  in  tlie  Congressional  Record,  June  2,  pp.  7944-5,  and  are 
as  follows: 

Macon,  Ga.,  February  23,  1904. 
Hox.  A.  O.  Bacon,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Sir — I  beg  to  own  receipt  of  yours  of  the  20th,  and  have 
careifully  noted  same. 

I  recall  very  distinctly  my  conversation  with  you  on  the  subject  of 

steel  rails  purchased  by  my  company  from  the company,  and  1 

take  pleasure  in  giving  you  the  details  of  the  transaction,  asking  you, 
however,  to  refrain  from  mentioning  the  names  of  the  parties. 

The  extension  of  our  road,  some  40  miles,  was  decided  upon  and 
cash  provided  for  it  early  in  the  spring  of  1901.  Owing  to  the  de- 
mand at  that  time  for  steel  in  all  forms  and  the  probability  of  an 
advance  in  price,  it  seemed  wise  to  take  up  the  matter  of  the  pur- 
chase of  the  necessary  rails  at  once.  Inquiries,  therefore,  were  ad- 
dressed and  mailed  to  all  the  leading  steel  rail  manufacturers  in  the 
country,  asking  for  tenders  on  GO  miles  of  70-pound  steel  rail  de- 
livered at  Savannah  or  ]VIaeon,  the  point  of  delivery  to  be  optional 
with  us. 

We  received  prompt  responses,  but  there  was  practically  no  dif- 
ference in  the  bids,  tlie  eastern  rail  mills  contiguous  to  tide  water 
quoting  practically  the  same  price  delivered  at  Savannah  and  a 
correspondingly  higher  price  for  Macon  delivery,  the  interior  rail 
mills  making  a  lower  price  for  ]Macon  delivery  and  a  higher  price 
for  Savannah  delivery.  It  was  very  evident  to  me  tnat  the  field  had 
been  divided  by  the  manufacturers  and  that  no  one  of  them  would 
encroach  upon  the  territory  assigned  to  the  others. 

After  endeavoring  in  vain  to  obtain  better  prices  than  those  quoted, 

we  finally  acce}>ted  the  bid  of  tlie  —  Steel  Company,  and  placed 

our  order  with  them  for  5,618  tons  of  rail  at  $29  per  ton,  based  upon 
(leliveiy  at  tide  water.  This  would  enable  us  to  arrange  our  own 
freight  rate  to  Savannah  and  effect  some  saving  in  the  cost  of  the 
rails.  The  order  was  declined  on  these  terms,  the  Steel  Com- 
pany refusing  to  make  any  price  f.  o.  b.  mill,  but  insisting  upon 
delivered  price. 

The  matter  was  then  taken  up  with  interior  mills,  who  were  per- 
fectly willing  to  make  a  price  f.  o.  b.  mill,  but  we  were  unable  to 
obtain  any  concession  in  all-rail  rates  which  would  reduce  the  cost 
of  the  rail  below  that  quoted  by  the  Steel  Company  for  de- 
livery at  Savannah. 


50  FURTHER  EVIDENCE  PRODUCED. 


The  whole  transaction  in  the  meantime  had  been  handled  by  wire, 

owing  to  the  demands  of  the Steel  Company  that  it  be  closed 

at  once,  as  the  price  would  be  advanced. 

I  made  one  more  effort.  Some  friends  of  mine  were  interested  in  a 
railroad  project  in  Central  America,  and  I  broached  the  subject  to 

the  representative  of  the  — < Steel  Company  who  had  come  here 

to  close  the  matter  with  me.  I  told  him  that  my  friends  had  made 
some  inquiry  of  me  as  to  the  cost  of  construction  in  that  country, 
and  I  should  like  to  know  at  what  price  he  would  sell  me  steel  rails 
delivered  at  tide  water  for  shipment^  to  Honduras.  He  promptly 
quoted  me  $20  per  ton.  Further  inquiry  developed  the  fact,  how- 
ever, that  they  would  only  load  vessels  chartered  to  a  foreign  port 
and  that  the  charter  should  be  an  essential  part  of  the  contract. 
The  wall  was  complete.  There  was  nothing  left  for  me  to  do  but  to 
place  my  order  and  to  thank  God  it  was  no  worse,  as  within  two 
days  thereafter  steel  rails  advanced  $2  per  ton. 

Allowing  a  liberal  amount  for  cost  of  delivery  at  tide  water,  which 
in  this  particular  case  would  have  been  very  small,  we  American 
citizens  paid  to  this  American  industry  $33,000  in  excess  of  what 
foreigners  would  have  been  compelled  to  pay.  And  $33,000  would 
have  put  up  a  very  handsome  library  filled  with  standard  books  on 
protection. 

And  this  was  a  very  small  transaction — only  50  miles  of  railroad! 
Payments  were  cash,  and  we  neither  needed  nor  asked  any  conees 
sions  in  the  matter  of  time.  Because  we  were  Americans,  interested 
in  the  development  of  a  small  section  of  our  country,  involving  faith 
and  sacrifices,  we  were  compelled  to  pay  out  as  a  bonus  in  excess  of 
$600  per  mile. 

These  are  the  facts.  Unfortunately,  I  had  only  the  verbal  quotation 
on  the  rails  for  foreign  shipment,  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  was  at 
least  the  top  of  the  market,  but  I  have  the  full  correspondence  in  my 
files  covering  the  rest  of  the  transaction. 

Owing  to  the  necessity  for  prompt  action,  I  was  unable  to  secure 
prices  from  foreign  rail  makers,  but  it  would  be  foolish  to  imagine 
that  that  avenue  had  not  also  been  closed  to  us. 

1  have  written  you  hurriedly,  and  may  not  have  given  you  all  the 
facts  or  as  clearly  as  you  desire.  If  there  is  still  opportunity  and  I 
can  further  elucidate  the  matter,  please  advise  me,  and  I  shall  take 
pleasure  in  doing  so. 

For  purely  business  reasons  I  must  ask  you  not  to  mention  the 
names  1  have  given.  Personally,  I  should  like  to  see  it  given  the  widest 
publicity ;  and  if  the  statement  is  of  any  use  to  you,  I  shall  be  glad,  as 
an  American  and  as  a  Republican.    Very  truly  yours, 

J.  T.  WRIGHT. 

Mr.  Bacon — "I  desire  to  say,  with  reference  to  the  blanks  in  the 
letter,  that,  in  accordance  with  the  request  of  the  writer,  who,  by 
the  way,  is  from  the  State  of  Indiana,  I  have  omitted  the  names; 
but  I  can  furnish  the  names  omitted  to  any  Senator  who  desires  to 
know  them.  I  have  omitted  them, from  this  reading  in  deference  to 
the  request  of  the  writer,  which  he  stated  was  for  business  reasons 
solely. 

"I  will  now  ask  the  Seeretaiy  to  read  the  next  letter,  which  is 
from  a  gentleman  w  ho  was  then  the  president  of  the  Mexican  National 
Railroad,  a  railroad  lying  partly  in  Texas  and  partly  in  Mexico.  That 
letter  was  addressed  to  me  also.    The  caption  is  left  off  there." 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows: 

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  20th.  It  would  not  be  any 
embarrassment  for  me  to  g^ve  you  the  information  you  ask  if  it  were 
possible  for  me  to  do  so,  but  I  believe  it  will  not  be  practicable.  I 
am  so  overwhelmed  with  work  preparatory  to  getting  my  affairs  in 
shape  for  leaving  my  present  position  with  the  company  that  I  have 
no  time  to  devote  to  anything  outside  of  my  official  work,  and  to  get 
any  accurate  information  would  require  going  back  into  the  files  of 
the  purchasing  agent's  office,  and  the  man  who  is  familiar  with  this 
whole  business  is  leaving  for  Mexico  City  today. 


FURTHER  EVIDENCE  PRODUCED.  51 

For  a  long  time  past  all  our  purchases  have  been  made  on  the  basis 
of  export  prices,  even  though  they  have  occasionally  stopped  in  Texas, 
the  competition  being  keen  enough  to  produce  this  cut  in  prices  in 
favor  of  the  Texas  shipments,  so  that  it  has  been  some  time  past  sine<j 
we  have  had  any  material  differences,  but  those  differences  do  exist 
and  to  an  iniquitous  extent.  I  use  the  word  "iniquitous"  because  it 
certainly  seems  so  to  me  when  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  are 
required  under  the  laws  of  the  country  to  pay  a  higher  price  to  the 
manufacturers  than  these  same  manufacturers  are  willing  to  make 
and  sell  to  foreign  people  for.  In  1902  I  secured  bids  on  steel  rails 
for  Mexico  from  United  States  mills  at  about  $24  delivered  at  Tam- 
pico,  while  the  price  I  paid  at  the  same  time  for  rail  for  our  road  in 
Texas  was  $28  at  the  mills. 

I  have  understood  that  the  Canadian  Pacific  has  just  bought  a 
large  lot  of  rails  from  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  at  $21. 
It  is  asserted  and  denied  that  the  $21  is  for  delivery  at  Montreal. 
If  it  is,  the  price  at  the  mill  would  be  about  $19,  while  the  price 
for  United  States  roads  is  still  $28  at  the  mills.  I  do  not  know  this 
of  my  own  knowledge,  and  it  is  merely  current  report. 

When  I  saw  that  you  had  introduced  a  bill  in  Congress  to  inquire 
into  these  differences  in  prices,  I  was  very  much  pleased  that  you 
had  started  the  inquiry,  and  intended  to  write  you  a  line  expressing 
myself  in  that  sense,  but  I  was  interrupted  by  one  thing  and  another, 
and  finally  it  escaped  me.  The  source  from  which  you  are  seeking 
to  get  this  information  will  be  official  and  thoroughly  authentic,  and 
it  seems  to  me  it  should  supply  you  with  material  quite  sufficient  to 
establish  your  case.  *  *  *  With  kind  regards,  I  remain,  yours  very 
truly,  W.  G.  RAOUL. 

Senator  Bacon  said: 

"I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact,  the  pertinent  fact,  disclosed 
in  that  letter.  There  is  a  railroad  which,  as  I  stated  before,  runs 
partly  in  Texas  and  partly  in  Mexico,  and  the  statement  made  by 
the  president  of  the  road,  for  whose  credibility  I  entirely  vouch,  a 
man  beyond  possibility  of  suspicion,  to  the  contrary  is  that  upon 
that  part  of  his  railroad  in  Texas  he  was  charged  $28  at  the  mill 
for  rails;  that  from  the  same  company,  at  the  same  time,  he  was 
priced  rails  and  furnished  rails  at  $24,  delivered  at  Tampico.  Allow- 
ing $4  for  freight,  which  is  not  unreasonable,  and  which  I  presume 
was  about  the  freight,  there  was  a  difference  of  $8  between  the  price 
charged  by  the  same  mill  at  the  same  time  to  the  same  consumer  for 
rails  for  the  same  railroad,  part  of  it  lying  in  Texas  and  part  of  it 
lying  in  Mexico — $28  for  the  rails  to  be  used  on  the  part  of  the 
road  lying  in  Texas  and  $20  for  the  rails  to  be  used  on  the  part  of 
the  road  lying  in  Mexico." 

Those  concrete  cases  ought  to  satisfy  even  the  greatest  Repub- 
'  lican  unbeliever  of  the  fact  that  the  steel  trust  sells  cheaper 
abroad  than  here.  On  May  1,  1906,  the  representatives  of  the 
Steel  Rail  Pool  met,  and  it  was  published  in  all  the  morning 
newspapers  of  May  2,  and  ''fixed  the  price"  of  steel  rails  at  $28 
a  ton  for  the  next  fiscal  year  beginning  July  1.  That  was  a 
distinct  case  of  a  "combination  in  restraint  of  trade,"  but  neither 
the  President  or  his  Attorney-General  appear  to  have  noticed  it, 
for  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  disrupt  this  illegal  "pool"  or 
combination. 


52  SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL. 

SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL 

ALSO  SOLD  CHEAPER  ABROAD  THAN  HERE. 

In  the  report  of  the  Merchant  Marine  Commission  of  1906, 
volume  3,  page  77,  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Nixon,  a  ship  builder 
known  to  all  the  world  as  a  man  of  character  and  great  experience, 
was  a  witness  before  the  Commission  composed  of  members  of 
both  Houses  of  Congress  at  its  hearing  held  in  New  York  city, 
beginning  on  May  23,  1905,  gave  evidence  as  follows: 

EXPERT  TESTIMONY  ON  DUMPING. 

Senator  Mallory — -"There  is  another  question.  Sohie  years  ago  we 
were  shipping  steel  plates  to  the  Clyde.  As  I  remember,  we  had  some 
very  good  evidence  to  that  effect  before  Congress.  Quite  a  large  con- 
tract was  made,  and  it  was  said  that  we  were  underselling  the  Britisli 
steel-plate  makers  on  their  own  ground.  Do  you  remember  whether 
or  not  that  was  correct  ?    That  was  about  four  or  five  years  ago." 

Mr.  Nixon — "I  heard  the  statement  at  the  time.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  some  contracts  were  placed  in  this  country.  I  merely  had  to  take 
the  statement  as  I  saw  it  printed.    I  had  no  connection  with  it." 

Senator  Mallory — "Since  then  these  plates  have  gone  up  so  that  at 
the  present  time  there  is  about  one-third  diif erence  ?" 

Mr.  Nixon — "They  are  selling  approximately  at  $38  a  ton  here  as 
against  $31  there.  But  that  is  the  price  here  for  American  materials. 
Undoubtedly  American  material  can  he  bought  in  England  very  much 
more  cheaply  than  here  at  present. 

Now,  on  page  79  of  the  same  volume,  Representative  McDermott, 
of  New  Jersey,  questioning  him : 

Representative  McDermott — "Your  proposition  is  this:  American 
plates  can  be  sold  abroad,  or  are  sold  abroad,  for  some  business  reason, 
at  a  less  price  than  they  are  sold  here?" 

Mr.  Nixon— "Yes." 

Representative  McDermott — "Plates  of  equal  quality,  but  of  foreign 
manufacture,  can  be  imported  for  less  than  yovi  can  buy  domestic 
plates  here?" 

Mr.  Nixon— "Yes." 

Before  the  same  Commission  and  in  the  same  report,  on  the 
volume  and  pages  given,  this  further  testimony  was  given  by  other 
witnesses  conclusively  showing  that  our  trusts  and  combines  are 
persistently  selling  abroad  cheaper  than  here,  which  is  shown  as 
follows: 

Mr.  A.  A.  Moss  (p.  1722,  vol.  3) — i"I  believe  that  the  steel  trust  is 
responsible  to  a  great  extent  in  discriminating  against  the  American 
shipbuilder  in  the  way  of  prices,  as  plates  and  other  material  made 
by  the  American  steel  trust  are  shipped  to  England  and  sold  at  25 
to  33  per  cent,  less  than  they  can  be  had  in  this  country." 

Mr.  McGregor  (p.  782,  vol.  2) — "I  picked  up  a  newspaper  in  the 
month  of  February  and  read  as  a  piece  of  news  that  one  of  the  in- 
dependent steel  companies,  not  in  the  trust,  in  Pennsylvania,  had  just 
sold  40,000  tons  of  steel  rails  to  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railroad  at 
$21.50  per  ton.  *  *  *  You  remember  that  when  Congressman 
Johnson  was  in  the  House  he  made  the  statement,  as  a  steel  manu- 
facturer, that  he  could  make  steel  rails  at  a  profit  of  $2  per  ton  and 
deliver  them  on  the  cars  at  Johnstown,  on  the  Cambria  Works,  at 
$18.50.  That  statement  is  on  record  in  Congress,  and  it  is  not  dis- 
puted. *  *  *  Oh,  they  did  contradict  him,  but  the  question'here 
for  us,  I  think,  gentlemen,  is.  Did  they  successfully  contradict  him? 


SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL.  53 

Because  he  was  at  that  time  one  of  the  largest  manufacturers  of 
steel  rails  in  the  United  States.  As  a  manufacturer  of  steel  rails,  he 
simply  took  his  books  and  showed  that  he  paid  higher  wages  than 
any  other  concern  in  the  trust,  and  he  was  then  a  member  of  the 
steel  trust.    Those  are  facts  on  record." 

The  above  statement  was  made  before  the  Commission  June  27,  1904. 

Mr.  James  C.  Wallace,  of  the  American  Shipbuilding  Company,  on 
June  28,  1904,  gave  this  testimony  before  the  Commission: 

*  *  *  "Recently  one  of  our  largest  steel  mills  sold  abroad  100,000 
tons  of  steel  plate.  They  delivered  it,  I  understand,  at  Belfast  at  $24 
per  ton.  That  would  practically  mean,  with  ocean  rates  as  they  are, 
$22  a  ton  a-t  tide  water.  They  are  charging  us  today  at  Pittsburg 
$32  per  ton.  About  four  years  ago  our  company  took  a  contract  from 
the  American  Navigation  Company  for  building  here  on  the  Lakes  two 
7,000-tofi  ocean  ships.  *  *  *  We  took  the  contract  at  a  price  about 
equal  to  the  price  for  which  they  could  be  built  in  England  at  that 
time.  Steel  was  then  very  much  lower  than  it  is  today.  Steel  pools 
had  not  then  been  formed." 

Representative  Grosvenor — "I  want  to  know  who  bought  the  steel 
you  speak  of?" 

Mr.  Wallace— "The  Harland  &  Wolfe  Company." 

Representative  Grosvenor — "From  whom  did  they  buy  it?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "The  United  States  Steel  Corporation." 

Representative  Grosvenor — "Do  you  know  where  it  was  shipped 
from  ?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "I  do  not.  I  presume  from  the  Carnegie  Steel  Com- 
pany. I  do  not  know  that,  though,  for  a  fact,  as  they  have  so  many 
mills." 

Representative  Grosvenor — "And  their  present  price  to  you  is  $32?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "Thirty-two  dollars  a  ton,  Pittsburg." 

Representative  Grosvenor — "And  that  was  laid  down  at  Belfast  at 
$22  ?" 

Mr.  Wallace— "At  $24." 

The  Chairman — '"What  does  it  cost  to  transport  it  from  this  country 
to  Ireland?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "As  near  as  I  understand,  the  rates  at  the  present 
time  are  $2  a  ton.    That  would  be  $22  a  ton  at  tide  water."    *    *    * 

Representative  Grosvenor — "What  is  the  freight  from  Pittsburg  to 
tide  water?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "I  think  it  is  about  $1.40  a  ton.  I  am  not  positive 
about  that,  though  " 

Mayor  Johnson — "That  would  make  $11.40  difference  between  the 
Pittsburg  price  to  you  and  the  price  abroad  ?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "Yes.  I  am  not  positive  about  just  what  that  rate 
is."     *     *     • 

Representative  Minor — "Mr.  Wallace,  would  there  be  the  same  dif- 
ference between  all  material  that  goes  into  your  frames — ^your  shapes, 
I  suppose?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "Yes,  sir." 

Representative  Minor — ^"Beams,  rivets,  etc. — would  the  same  dif- 
ference be  maintained  between  the  cost  in  Europe  and  the  cost  here?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "It  is  so  today.  Plates,  beams,  angles  and  channels 
are  now  $32  per  ton,  Pittsburg."     *     *     » 

Mr.  Goulden — "Is  the  price  as  low  abroad  on  other  things  as  it  is 
on  the  plate?" 

Mr.  W^allace — "Yes,  sir.  Roll  prices  are  the  same  at  the  present 
time." 

Representative  Minor — "Do  they  lay  that  down  in  England  at  the 
present  time  at  that  price?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "Twenty-four  dollars  a  ton  in  Belfast.  They  made 
no  secret  of  it.     It  was  published  in  the  papers  at  the  time." 

The  Chairman — "I  presume  that  in  the  instance  you  have  cited  as 
to  the  sale  of  steel  abroad,  you  have  taken  the  pains  to  verify  it  be- 
yond peradventure  f 


54  SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL. 

Mr.  Wallace — "It  was  given  to  me  by  the  assistant  sales  agent  of 
the  Carnegie  Steel  Company." 

Senator  Penrose — "Was  any  reason  given  for  the  difference  in 
price  ?" 

Mr.  Wallace — "Nothing  but  that  they  wanted  to  keep  their  mills  in 
operation." 

Representative  Minor — "I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Edwin  S.  Cramp  is  about  the  same  as  that  of  Mr.  Wallace  on 
prices  abroad  and  here." 

The  Chairman — "Yes ;  I  think  it  is.  I  want  to  say  what  I  think  I 
am  "privileged  to  say,  as  chairman  of  this  Commission,  that,  if  the 
situation  is  as  has  been  described,  it  is  a  great  outrage.",    [Applause.] 

Mr.  Wallace — "We  have  thought  so  for  some  time,  and  we  have 
thought  that  in  some  way  it  ought  to  be  remedied." 

The  above  testimony  of  Mr.  Wallace  appears  on  pages  811,  812, 
813  and  814,  volume  2  of  the  report. 

EVIDENCE  OF  A  PROTECTIONIST. 

In  volume  3,  page  1893,  of  the  Senate  hearings  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce,  is  reported  the 
evidence  of  Mr.  Ramsay,  president  of  the  Wabash  and  Ann  Arbor 
Railroad  and  other  railroads.  That  railroad  runs  through  both 
American  and  Canadian  territory  and  Mr.  Ramsay  has  purchased 
steel  rails  to  be  laid  in  both  countries.     He  testified  as  follows: 

"Senator,  if  you  will  permit  me,  I  will  illustrate  it  by  the  rail  qu<is- 
tion:  Railroads  in  this  country  pay  $28  at  the  mill  for  rails.  The 
same  maker  will  sell  those  rails  to  the  Wahash  for  use  in  Canada  at 
$20  to  $21,  provided  they  are  used  in  Canada.  We  dare  not  use  them 
in  the  United  States.  Now,  we  say  to  the  makers  of  the  rails,  'We 
can  buy  English  rails,  delivered  on  these  shores,  at  $20  a  ton.'  Then 
Uncle  Sam  steps  in  and  says,  'Yes;  you  can  do  that,  but  if  you  buy 
those  rails  you  will  have  to  pay  to  Uncle  Sam  $8  a  ton  tariff  on 
them.'  On  lumber  there  is  a  $2  tariff  rate,  and  that,  Senator  Dolliver, 
would  add  $75  to  your  house  in  Kansas  or  Iowa,  four  times  as  much 
as  the  railroad  rate  will.  The  tariff  duties  on  steel  and  all  these 
things  force  the  railroads  to  pay  to  the  makers  of  steel  these  high 
rates.  Why  does  Uncle  Sam  do  that  ?  Why  did  they  do  it  originally  ? 
To  promote  industry  and  commerce.  And  that  is  why  they  should 
permit  the  railroads  to  make  low  rates  on  traffic  going  abroad  and 
low  rates  between  various  communities  on  the  long  haul,  to  do  the 
very  same  thing.  The  Government  pays  a  bonus  in  one  case.  In  the 
other  case  they  do  not." 

Mr.  Ramsay  is  a  Republican,  and  testified:  "I  am  in  favor  of 
the  tariff,  and  so  are  all  railroad  men." 

EVIDENCE   FROM  THE  "IRON  AGE." 

The  Iron  Age  is  a  great  trade  journal  of  all  matters  connected 
with  the  iron  and  steel  industry  and  is  of  course  in  sympathy 
with  the  manufacturers  who  support  it.  In  publishing  news  of 
the  trade  it  represents,  it  says:     . 

"On  November  12,  1903,  the  Iron  Age  quoted  American  bars  in  Eng- 
land at  82  shillings,  or  less  than  $20  per  ton,  and  in  America  at 
$1.4214,  or  $31.92  per  ton.  Thus  the  independent  manufacturer  of  tin 
plate  in  America,  who  has  to  buy  his  bars  of  the  steel  trust,  must  pay 
more  than  50  per  cent,  more  for  his  chief  raw  material  than  is  paid  by 
his  foreign  competitor.  This  is  'protection  to  home  industries'  with  a 
vengeance, 


SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL  55 

"The  same  number  of  the  Iron  Age  tells  us  that  American  steel 
beams,  plates,  angles,  channels  and  rivet  steel  are  being  sold  in  Canada 
at  from  $9  to  $11  per  ton  less  than  the  prices  charged  here. 

"The  Iron  Age  of  December  17  enumerated  a  great  number  of  arti- 
cles of  American  make  which  sold  largely  in  South  Africa.  Nearly 
all  are  sold  there  at  prices  far  below  those  charged  here.  Thus  it  ap- 
pears that  shovels,  which  our  shovel  trust  sells  here  at  90  cents  each, 
are  sold  there  at  36 1/^  cents.  This  Iron  Age  also  contains  information 
showing  that  United  States  Steel  Corporation  was,  early  in  January, 
offering  steel  billets  in  Lanarkshire,  England,  at  75  shillings  per  ton. 
Deducting  $5  for  freight  and  other  transportation  costs,  the  trust  gets 
about  $14  per  ton  for  billets  for  export,  while  its  price  to  American 
consumers  is  $23." 

The  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce  and  Commercial  Bulletin 
of  July  30,  1904,  said: 

"One  of  the  most  interesting  features  of  the  steel  situation  is  an 
important  sale  of  several  thousand  tons  of  steel  plates  for  export, 
the  price  of  £5  delivered  at  Neweastle-on-the-Tyne  netting  the  mills 
about  90  cents  per  net  ton,  f.  o.  b.  Pittsburg.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  sales  are  made  in  the  English  market  by  the  gross  ton; 
allowing  $3.50  freight  rates  and  a  slight  allowance  for  insurance,  this 
price  would  net  the  mills  $20  gross,  or  $1.80  per  net  ton,  or  90  cents 
per  hundred,  against  $1.60  per  hundred  for  domestic  business." 

As  that  journal  is  looked  upon  as  an  authority  by  bankers  and 
business  men  its  evidence  cannot  be  disputed. 


OFFICIAL   REPORT. 

In  the  August,  1900,  report  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Statistics  on  commerce  and  finance  there  is  a  report  on  the 
difference  between  the  price  at  which  iron  and  steel  products  are 
sold  at  home  and  in  foreign  markets,  which  shows  that  this 
bureau,  although  notoriously  run  in  the  interest  of  the  protection 
system  was  compelled  to  note  the  fact  of  the  advantage  foreigners 
were  getting  by  the  "dumping"  process  of  the  trusts  and  advise 
against  its  continuance.  It  also  shows  that  what  our  merchant 
marine  needs  is  cheaper  materials  rather  than  a  direct  subsidy 
of  the  people's  money  out  of  the  United  States  Treasury.  Mark 
what  this  government  report  says: 

"The  progress  of  work  on  shiphuilding  in  the  United  States  has  like- 
wise been  retarded,  because  makers  of  steel  materials  required  a  higher 
price  from  the  American  consumers  than  they  did  from  the  foreign 
consumers  for  substantially  similar  products.  Of  course,  American 
exporters  have  to  get  foreign  contracts  in  competition  with  foreign 
plate  makers,  who  are  excluded  from  our  domestic  market.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  American  export  plate  makers  are  interested  in  prevent- 
ing the  establishment  of  plate  manufacturing  in  their  customer  nations 
abroad,  and  to  that  end  bid  low  enough  to  discourage  foreign  nations 
from  entering  the  field  for  producing  their  own  plate  at  home.  The 
progress  of  domestic  manufacturers  of  iron  and  steel  goods  may  like- 
wise be  handicapped  by  the  sale  of  iron  and  steel  in  their  manufac- 
tured state  at  so  much  lower  a  price  to  foreigners  than  to  domestic 
consumers  as  to  keep  the  American  competitor  out  of  foreign  markets 
generally.  The  natural  limit  to  such  a  policy  of  maintaining  a  higher 
level  of  prices  for  these  materials  at  home  than  abroad  is  found  in  the 
restriction  of  domestic  consumption  amd  the  import  duty.  If  restric- 
tion of  consumption  at  home  does  not  operate  to  prevent  the  short- 
sighted policy  of  discrimination    against    domestic    development    of 


56  SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL. 

manufacturing  industries,  the  other  contingency  is  more  or  less  sure  to 
rise,  namely,  the  demand  for  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  unfinished 
iron  and  steel,  in  order  to  equalize  the  opportunity  oi  makers  of  tin- 
isheu  products  in  foreign  markets.  To  this  policy  the  domestic  con- 
sumer is  usually  ready  to  lend  himself,  thus  making  a  powerful  com- 
bination of  interests  to  set  limits  to  the  rise  of  domestic  prices  of  iron 
and  steel  materials.  • 

*  *  *  *  «  ♦ 

"Of  the  two  policies  open  to  iron  and  steel  makers,  the  far-sighted 
one  of  keeping  the  domestic  and  foreign  markets  as  near  as  possible  on 
a  par  in  the  price  of  these  materials  of  manufacture  seems  by  far  the 
wiser  one  to  follow,  both  in  the  interest  of  a  steadier  course  of  prices, 
which  means  steadier  consumption,  and  on  account  of  the  competition 
of  manufacturers  of  finished  goods  with  foreign  manufacturers  in  the 
neutral  markets  of  the  world. 

"The  other  policy  of  maintaining  prices  to  manufacturers  at  the 
highest  level  at  home  leaves  little  margin  for  experiment  in  seeking 
new  markets,  and  restricts  the  application  of  iron  and  steel  to  addi- 
tional uses  at  home.  The  depressing  effects  of  an  agitation  for  tariff 
revision  to  remedy  this  inequality  are  sure  to  cause  a  far  greater  busi- 
ness loss,  not  only  to  the  country  as  a  whole,  but  to  the  producers  of 
iron  and  steel  themselves,  than  is  to  be  gained  by  selling  at  low  prices 
abroad,  which  they  cannot  help,  and  at  high  prices  at  home,  which  they 
can  help.  Nor  can  the  home-market  price  be  sustained  beyond  certain 
limits  by  export  sales.  Certain  American  manufacturers  of  steel  ma- 
terials tried  this  policy  up  to  April,  1900.  It  resulted  in  a  very 
positive  shrinkage  in  domestic  consumption  at  the  then  high  rates. 
Farmers  had  ceased  to  purchase  barbed  wire  for  wire  fences,  retail 
hardware  dealers  had  complained  for  months  of  diminished  business  in 
nails  and  wire.  Jobbers  had  gotten  in  the  way  of  .doing  a  hand-to- 
mouth  business  on  prices  that  had  advanced  from  $1.35  to  $3.20  in 
the  course  of  a  year.  Hence  the  reduction  of  $1  in  April,  1900,  became 
a  necessity  in  order  to  keep  the  mills  in  operation. 

"/f  steel  rails,  for  example,  sell  at  Pittsburg  for  $35  per  ton  for 
months  in  succession  for  home  consumption,  while  the  foreign  con- 
sumer  is  purchasing  them  for  $22  to  $24  per  ton,  the  domestic  market 
is  sure  to  order  no  more  than  it  is  obliged  to  have  for  the  time  being." 


EVIDENCE   FROM   ABROAD. 

Hon,  John  Sharp  Williams,  from  whose  comprehensive  speech 
of  May  3,  1906,  in  Congress  on  this  subject  much  of  this  evidence 
is  taken,  entirely  demolishes  the  arguments  and  figures  of  the 
Republicans  who  had  preceded  him — notably  Representative 
Hepburn  of  Iowa — quoted  from  certain  testimony  given  in  1904 
before  the  Chamberlain  Tariff  Commission  of  Great  Britain  by 
members  of  English  firms  as  to  what  prices  American  goods  were 
sold  in  Great  Britain  in  comparison  with  prices  prevailing  in 
Pittsburg  at  the  same  time.  The  report  of  this 'Commission,  says 
Mr.  Williams,  fairly  bristles  with  such  items  as  these: 

Firm  No.  312 :  "We  have  an  offer  this  week  of  Siemens-Martin  billets, 
made  at  Pittsburg,  delivered  c.  i.  f.  British  port,  of  75  shiUings  per  ton. 
This  week's  quotation  for  pig  iron  for  steel-making  purposes  (see  Iron 
Age,  Jan.  21,  1904)  is  about  $13  per  ton  at  Pittsburg.  The  best- 
equipped  works  in  Pittsburg  sell  at  present  raw  material,  wages  and 
prices,  manufactured  pig  iron  into  Siemens-Martin  open-hearth  billets 
at  $G.50  per  ton — that  is,  equal  to  $19.50  per  ton  at  Pittsburg.  The 
selling  (pool)   price  at  Pittsburg  today  for  open-hearth  billets  is  $24. 

In  other  words,  the  Siemens-Martin  billets,  which  were  offered  to 
firm  No.  312  at  75  shillings  per  ton,  were  costing  American  consumers 
that  same  week  $24,  or  98.36  shillings  per  ton — 23.30  shillings  more 
to  the  American  than  to  the  foreigner. 


SHIP  BUILDING  MATERIAL.  57 

Firm  No.  898 :  "Pig  iron  from  United  States  of  America  is  imported 
into  this  country  (England)  below  cost  price  here;  our  consumers  are 
buying  at  5  shillings  per  ton  less  than  we  can  produce  it,  and  the 
Americans  are  reported  to  be  selling  for  export  to  England  at*  a  price 
equivalent  to  8  shillings  per  ton  lower  than  the  price  at  which  they 
are  supplied  in  their  own  country." 

EVIDENCE  AT  HOME. 

Mr.  Henry  O.  Havemeyer,  president  of  the  sugar  trust,  to  the 
Industrial  Commission,  said: 

"The  mother  of  all  trusts  is  the  customs-tariff  bill.  The  existing 
bill  and  the  preceding  one  have  been  the  occasion  of  the  formation 
of  all  the  large  trusts,  with  very  few  exceptions,  inasmuch  as  they 
provide  for  an  inordinate  protection  to  all  the  interests  of  the  country, 
sugar  refining  excepted. 

"In  fact,  the  tariff  bill  clutches  the  people  by  the  throat,  and  then 
the  governors  and  the  attorney-generals  of  the  several  States  take 
action,  not  against  the  cause,  but  against  the  machinery  which  the 
people  employ  to  rifle  the  public's  pockets. 

"Without  the  tariff  I  doubt  if  we  should  have  dared  to  take  the  risk 

of  forming  the  trust.     It  could  have  been  done;  but  I  certainly  should 

not  have  risked  all   I  had,  which  was  then  embarked  in  the  sugar 

business,  in  a  trust  unless  the  business  had  been  protected  as  it  was 

by  the  tariff." 

*  ****** 

"Steel  rails  were  exported  at  the  time  the  steel  schedule  was  under 
discussion.  They  were  being  sent  to  England  and  Scotland.  They  can 
be  produced  for  $15  a  ton;  they  are  worth  $24  a  ton.  Now,  the  reason 
they  are  worth  $24  a  ton  is  because  the  people,  under  the  tariff,  are 
mulcted  for  the  difference.  I  am  not  talking  about  things  that  are 
ancient  history;  I  am  talking  about  things  that  exist.  I  am  not  talk- 
ing as  to  whether  100  per  cent,  was  necessary  or  not.  I  am  talk- 
ing about  the  effect  of  the  tariff  today,  which  is  the  mother  of  these 
trusts  which  are  mulcting  the  people,  and  there  is  not  a  line  of  it  free 
from  this  abuse  today." 

May  11,  1901,  Mr.  Schwab,  of  the  Carnegie  Steel  Company,  to 
the  Industrial  Commission,  said: 

Q.  Is  it  a  fact  generally  proved  of  all  exporters  in  this  country 
that  they  do  sell  at  lower  prices  in  foreign  markets  than  they  do  in 
the  home  markets?     A.     That  is  true,  perfectly  true. 

Q.  Would  you  say  that  when  business  is  in  a  normal  condition 
the  export  prices  are  regularly  somewhat  lower  than  home  prices? 
A.     Oh,  yes;  always. 

Q.  Suppose  you  take  the  case  of  steel  rails.  Could  you  give  about 
the  difference  between  the  export  and  domestic  price?  A.  I  would 
have  to  make  a  guess;  I  do  not  know  exactly.  The  export  price  is 
about  $23  a  ton. 

Q.     And  the  price  here?— A.     Was  $26  and  $28. 

Q.     At  the  same  time? — A.     At  the  same  time. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  men  of  limited  capital  can  start  in  business 
and  become  large  owners  as  readily  now,  under  this  system,  as  they 
did  formerly? 

Mr.  Schwab.     \  do  not  quite  understand  that. 

Q.  Has  a  person  or  a  company  with  limited  capital  the  same  op- 
portunity to  start  in  business  and  become  large  proprietors  or  owners 
under  the  consolidated  system  as  there  was  formerly? 

Mr.  Schwab.  W>11,  if  you  put  the  question  that  way,  I  think  the 
man  with  exceptional  ability  today  has  a  better  opportunity  of  be- 
coming a  large  owner  or  a  large  director  in  one  of  these  great  com- 
panies than  ever  before.  If  you  say  the  man  with  capital  at  the 
start — small  capital  at  the  start — /  doubt  it.  (Vpl.  13,  Rep.  Tnd. 
Com.,  p.   459.) 


58  AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES. 


AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES. 

ARE  SOLD   FROM   25  TO  40   PER  CENT.  CHEAPER  ABROAD 
THAN  AT    HOME. 

Prices  on  Agricultural  Implements;  Mr.  Seabury  to  the  Fray 

Again. 

Editor  American  Industries:  A  speech  was  made  at  the  last  con- 
vention of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  at  Atlanta  by 
the  manager  of  an  agricultural  implement  industry,  in  answer  to  a 
statement  made  by  me  in  an  address  "On  Tariff  Revision  and  the 
Remedy."  In  it  I  asserted  that  American  agricultural  implements 
were  sold  for  export  below  home  prices;  and  I  also  stated  that  Cana- 
dian, English  and  German  firms  were  successful  competitors  of  our 
American  imperious  manufacturers;  moreover,  that  German  manufac- 
turers were  sending  competitive  wares  into  our  home  market,  men- 
tioning Texas  in  particular.  These  statements  are  true.  The  speaker 
had  the  assurance  to  state  that  my  assertions  were  untrue,  and 
volunteered  the  statement  that  the  wares  of  his  establishment  were 
not  only  sold  at  the  same  price  for  export  as  in  the  United  States, 
but  higher  prices  were  obtained.  In  my  general  statement  .1  qualified 
my  assertion  by  saying  that  exporters  of  American  products  operated 
under  that  rule  except  where  the  wares  represented  a  monopoly  or 
were  patented.  To  this  statement  I  also  added  in  my  own  behalf  that 
we  were  compelled  to  undersell  home  prices  in  order  to  acquire  export 
trade,  which  is  also  true. 

These  facts  are  generally  known,  our  surplus  agricultural  imple- 
ments bein^  disposed  of  at  from  25  to  40  per  cent,  less  on  export  orders 
for  competitive  wares.  If  proofs  are  needed  to  sustain  this  assurance 
an  application  to  the  undersigned  at  59  and  61  Maiden  Lane,  New 
York  City,  will  satisfy  the  most  incredulous  investigator  that  I  spoke 
truthfully  and  that  evidence  will  be  furnished  from  the  largest  manu- 
facturing firms  in  and  out  of  the  agricultural  implement  syndicates  or 
combinations  and  from  export  merchants,  who  ship  these  goods  to 
every  part  of  the  world. 

Facts  and  statistics  are  unimpeachable;  I  have  no  motive  in  study- 
ing international  problems  other  than  to  present  our  strength  and 
weaknesses  in  promoting  and  preserving  our  national  commercial  inter- 
ests in  any  form.  It  is  seldom  that  an  incident  like  the  above  has 
occurred  in  my  experience  covering  more  than  thirty  years;  whenever 
it  has,  it  was  inspired  either  through  wilful  misrepresentation  or  lack 
of  definite  information.  George  J.  Seabury. 

New  York,  June  23. 

— American  Industries,  July  1,  1905. 

IT  HAS  BEEN  CHARGED  SINCE  1890  THAT  AGRICULTURAL 

MACHINERY  MADE   IN  THE   UNITED  STATES    IS 

SOLD    CHEAPER    IN    FOREIGN    COUNTRIES 

THAN   TO  OUR   OWN   PEOPLE. 

In  1890,  the  Hon.  Jeremiah  M.  Rusk,  Secretary  of  Agriculture, 
under  the  Harrison  administration,  in  1890,  said: 

"I  had  an  opportunity  to  take  some  stock  in  the  combination  (Amer- 
ican Harvester  Co. ) ,  and  I  know  what  inducements  were  offered.  An 
investigation  will  show  that  this  same  combination  is  now  selling  or 
offering  to  sell,  machinery  in  Russia  and  Australia  and  other  wheat 
growing  countries  at  a  lower  figure  than  they  do  in  this  country.  This 
won't  do,  and  I  need  not  offer  any  argument  to  ])rove  the  weight  or 
truth  of  the  assertion.  The  first  thing  the  farmer  will  do  when  he  is 
acquainted  with  the  facts  will  be  to  make  a  howl  against  trusts  and 
protection  that  does  not    protect.     Whether    justly  or  not,  he    will 


AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES. 


59 


charge  it  to  the  Republican  party.  I  am  as  certain  as  I  can  be  of 
anything  that  this  Mower  and  Reaper  Trust  will  cost  the  Republican 
party  hundreds  of  thousands  of  votes  at  the  next  Presidential  election 
unless  it  takes  a  firm  stand  against  it  and  trusts  in  general." 

To  test  the  matter  the  Farmers  Call,  of  Quincy,  111.,  wrote  Mr. 
A.  B.  Farquhar,  the  head  of  the  Pennsylvania  Agricultural  Works, 
one  of  the  leading  manufacturers,  both  of  the  home  trade  and 
for  export,  of  agricultural  implements  and  machinery.  His 
answer  was  as  follows: 

"July  30,   1890. 

"The  'fact'  is  that  protective  laws  are  a  monstrous  swindle  upon  the 
agricultural  community.  As  a  manufacturer  I  was  inclined  to  say 
nothing  on  the  subject,  for  the  reason  that  it  was  natural  to  suppose 
if  anybody  was  benefited  it  was  the  manufacturing  class,  to  which  I 
belong.  But,  as  I  have  exjDlained,  the  farmer  is  being  destroyed.  We 
are  killing  the  goose  for  the  golden  egg.  And  I  honestly  believe  now 
that  it  is  to  be  the  interest  of  the  manufacturers  themselves  to  elimi- 
nate the  protective  feature  from  our  tariff  laws. 

Manufactures  are  sold  much  lower  abroad,  we  could  only  need 
protection  to  get  better  prices  from  our  customers  at  home.  We 
do  manufacture  and  sell  in  Canada,  South  America,  and  Europe 
many  agricultural  implements  and  machines,  and  could  we  have  free 
raw  material  and  the  commercial  advantages  which  free  trade  would 
give  us  America  would  become  the  great  manufacturing  emporium  of 
the  world,  and  the  farmer  would,  of  course,  share  the  prosperity  since 
he  would  have  less  to  pay  for  everything  and  get  better  prices  for  all 
he  sold.  Go  on  with  your  good  work.  When  the  farmer  begins  to 
think  and  rise  up  against  this  swindle  it  is  doomed." 

EXPORTS  OF  AGRICULTURAL   IMPLEMENTS. 

(Statistical  Abstract— 1905). 


ARTICLES. 


1896 


1897 


1898 


1899 


Agricultural  Implements  : 
Mowers  and  reapers  ;  and 

parts    of 

I'lows     and     cultivatons; ; 

and   parts   of 

All  other,  and  parts  of.  . 

Total 


$3,212,423 

746,604 
1,217,748 


$3,127,415 

590,779 
1,522.492 


$5,500,665 

927,250 
1.181.817 


$9,053,830 

1,545,410 
1.8.32,957 


$5,170,7751    $5,240,68(51    $7,609,732 
I  1 


$12,432,197 


1900        I        1901 


1902 


1903 


1904 


1905 


$11,243,763 

2.178,098 

2,677,288 


$9,948,680 

1,888,373 
4,481,381 


$8,818,370 

2,791,092 

4,677,278 


$10,326,641 

.3,169,961 
7,510,020! 


$11,568,062 

3,537,810 
7,643.763 


$10,559,891 

2,892,060 
7,269,790 


$16,099.1491  $16.313,434 1 $16.286.740| $21.006,622 1  $22,749,635 1     $20.721,741 


"As  soon  as  an  industry  has  attained  the  position  where  it  can  more 
than  supply  our  home  market  and  has  to  send  its  goods  abroad,  where 
they  compete  witn  those  of  foreign  manufacturers,  it  is  evident  that 
they  are  either  giving  the  foreigners  the  benefit  of  lower  rates  than 
they  do  our  own  people,  or  that  they  are  able  to  get  along  at  home 
without  any  protection  from  foreign  manufacturers.  It  is  not  fair 
that  our  own  people  should  be  made  to  pay  more  than  foreigners  for 
the  products  of  our  own  land." — Engineering  and  Mining  Journal, 
March  15,  1890. 


60  AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES. 

AMERICAN  TOOLS  CHEAPER   IN   GERMANY. 

On  the  day  when  the  American  chief  was  embarking  for  New 
York  in  order  to  purchase  his  supplies  of  American  tools,  the 
Panama  doctor  came  to  him  and  said : 

"I  can  buy  those  identical  American  tools  here  cheaper  than  you 
can  buy  them  in  New  York!  A  German  house  orders  them  for  me. 
They  go  from  New  York  to  Berlin,  and  from  Berlin  a  second  time 
across  the  Atlantic,  and,  inspite  of  all  that  travel,  I  get  them  here 
cheaper  than  you  can  in  New  York!      (Poultney  Bigelow. ) 

Free  Trade  Broadside,  April,  1906. 

THE  WATCH   TRUST  SELLS  CHEAPER  ABROAD  THAN   AT 

HOME. 

It  is  seldom  you  can  catch  a  trust  red  handed  in  carrying  off 
the  swag,  yet  that  has  been  accomplished  in  the  watch  trust  case, 
which  is  not  only  proved  to  be  selling  cheaper  abroad  than  here, 
but  also  of  restricting  trade  and  dictating  the  retail  prices  at 
which  watches  shall  be  sold. 

In  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  April  5  (see  Cong. 
Record,  April  5,  1906),  Hon.  Henry  T.  Rainey,  of  Illinois,  fully 
exposed  the  watch  trust  and  its  method  of  plundering  the  people 
of  the  United  States  through  the  protection  granted  the  trust  in 
the  Dingley  tariff  law. 

In  opening  his  speech  Mr.  Rainey  first  had  read  an  advertise- 
ment of  Charles  A.  Keene,  a  watch  and  diamond  merchant  of  180 
Broadway,  New  York  city,  which  is  as  follows: 

"[The  New  York  Press,  Friday  Morning,  February  2,  1906.] 
"FOR  SALE— DIAMONDS,  WATCHES,  ETC. 

"Warning!  Do  not  buy  Waltham  or  Elgin  watches  from  dealers 
allied  with  the  trust! 

"When  I  started  this  campaign  against  the  iniquitous  methods  prac- 
ticed by  the  watch  trust  against  both  consumer  and  dealer  I  prophesied 
that  the  exposure  of  the  combine's  unfair  methods  would  inevitably 
compel  the  watch  trust  to  forego  extorting  extravagant  profits  from 
American  watch  buyers  and  compel  them  to  get  down  to  a  square  basis 
or  to  quit  the  foreign  field.  That  alternative  is  now  being  considered 
by  the  watch  trust. 

"The  members  of  the  watch  trust  are  now  studiously  analyzing  the 
problem  created  by  the  stupendous  competition  I  have  initiated — even 
the  dealers  are  protesting  against  and  rejecting  the  ironclad  agree- 
ments heretofore  forced  upon  them  by  the  trust. 

"The  cost  of  your  watch  may  be  a  comparatively  trivial  affair,  but 
the  price  you  pay  involves  a  principle,  and  a  vital  one. 

"To  pay  $75  for  a  Waltham,  'Riverside  Maximus'  (the  price  which 
eight  out  of  ten  dealers  will  ask  you)  may  not  be  a  willful  extrava- 
gance from  the  standpoint  of  intrinsic  value,  but  to  pay  $32.70  more 
than  that  particular  watch  sells  for  in  England,  Egypt  or  Australia 
simply  because  it  is  a  home-made  article  and  you  live  in  the  United 
States  is  hardly  sufficient  justification  for  paying  tribute  and  dividends 
to  the  trust.  The  average  man  wants  fair  play  in  watch  buying  as  in 
other  things. 

"There  are  no  better  watches  made  in  the  world  than  those  turned 

out  of  our  American  factories.     That  fact  is  made  doubly  plain  by  the 

..high  character  of  the  goods  sent  abroad  by  the  watch  trust  to  compete 

with  the  world- renowned  watches  of  such  makers  as  Sir  John  Bennett, 

Jules  Jurgensen,  Patek  Phillipe,  Audemar,  Constantin  &  Yacheron,  etc. 


AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES.  61 

"It  may  seem  paradoxical  or  a  'bulP  to  say  that  in  order  to  get  the 
best  American-made  watches  at  the  lowest  prices  you  must  buy  them 
abroad,  but  such  is  the  fact,  thanks  to  a  benevolent  'protective'  tariff, 
which  enables  the  watch  trust  to  hold  up  the  American  public  and  de- 
mand tribute  for  dividends  from  Americans. 

"Here  is  an  illustration  of  how  the  watch  trust  mulcts  (or  milks) 
the  American  watch  buyer 

"Walk  into  any  jewelry  store  in  the  United  States  and  ask  to  be 
shown  the  best  Waltham  watcli  made.  They  will  show  you  the 
'Riverside  Maximus,'  at  $75. 

"Under  no  circumstances  are  tliey  allowed  to  sell  this  watch  for 
less  than  $(J0,  as  they  are  bound  by  the  'ironclad'  agreement  with  the 
trust  to  maintain  that  as  the  minimum  price.  1  buy  this  same 
'Riverside  Maximus'  in  England,  defray  all  shipping  expenses,  bring 
it  back  to  this  country  duty  free,  and  offer  it  to  the  American  public 
at  $42.30,  and  make  a  reasonable  trade  profit  on  the  transaction. 

"The  same  relative  price  difference  applies  to  all  other  grades  of 
Waltham  and  Elgin  watches. 

"It  is  even  possible  to  bring  Waltham  movements  back  to  this  coun- 
try from  England  and  retail  them  for  $'2.75  at  a  profit. 

"All  my  watches  are  guaranteed  brand  new,  just  as  they  come  from 
the  Waltham  and  Elgin  factories.  The  prices  are  all  under  the  mar- 
ket; for  instance,  the  Riverside,  seventeen  jewels,  price  $16.39.  No 
jeweler  is  allowed  to  sell  this  for  less  than  $25,  under  penalty  of  being 
blacklisted  by  the  trust  cuttmg  off  his  supply.  Ask  some  jeweler  and 
find  out.  All  my  prices  represent  about  the  same  percentage  of  saving. 
The  prices  quoted  below  are  for  movements  alone.  On  request  I  will 
submit  prices  on  any  sort  of  case  made.  I  do  not  sell  movements 
without  cases  or  cases  without  movements.  They  are  priced  sepa- 
rately simply  for  the  convenience  of  customers:  *• 

Waltham,  Maximus,  23  jewels $42.30 

Waltham,  15  jewels.  No.  820 3.98 

Waltham,  17  jewels,  No.  85 4.78 

Waltham,  Crescent  St.,  19  jewels 16.92 

Waltham,  Crescent  St.,  21  jewels 18.98 

Waltham,  Riverside,  17  jewels 16.39 

Waltham,  Vanguard,  23  jewels 25.38 

P.  S.  Bartlett,  17  jewels 7.98 

Elgin,  B.  W.  Raymond,  19  jewels 16.92 

Appleton,  Tracy  &  Co.,  17  jewels 11.98 

Laay  W^altham,  O  size,  16  jewels.  .  .  , 9.98 

Riverside,  12  size,  17  jewels 16.39 

Waltham,  Maximus,  21  jewels 39.9S 

Elgin,  Veritas,  23  jewels 25.38 

"CHARLES  A.  KEENE, 
"180  Broadway,  New  York,  Watches,  Diamonds,  Jewelry." 

Mr.  Rainey  then  said:     " 


"What  is  known  as  the  'big  four'  in  the  watch  trust  are  the  follow- 
ing: The  American  W^altham  Watch  Company,  of  Waltham,  Mass.; 
the  Crescent  Watch  Case  Company,  of  Philadelphia;  the  Elgin  Na- 
tional Watch  Company,  of  Elgin,  111.,  and  the  Keystone  W'atch  Case 
Company,  of  Newark,  N.  J.  The  Waltham  company  make  movements 
only,  and  they  are  put  on  the  market  and  sold  in  Crescent  cases.  The 
Elgin  National  Watch  Company  sells  their  watches  to  the  Keystone 
Watch  Case  Company  for  export,  and  they  are  exported  by  the  Key- 
stone Watch  Case  Company.  The  New  York  Standard  W^atch  Com- 
pany, of  Jersey  City;  the  Philadelphia  Watch  Case  Company,  of 
Riverside,  N.  J.,  and  the  E.  Howard  Watch  Company,  of  Boston,  are 
controlled  by  the  same  eajutal  that  controls  the  Keystone  company, 
an<l  in  order  to  show  how  closely  all  these  watch  companies  are  related 
I  want  simply  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  although  the  capital 


62  AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES. 

of  the  Keystone  company  controls  the  Howard  Watch  Company,  the 
Howard  watches  are  made  by  the  Waltham  factory  in  New  York.  All 
these  companies  own  each  other's  stock. 

"Now,  I  want  to  answer  tlie  questions  of  the  gentleman  from  Iowa. 
They  are  all  pertinent  and  in  fairness  they  ought  to  be  answered, 
and  inasmuch  as  he  has  asked  them,  coming  as  they  do  from  a  leading 
exponent  of  the  *stand-pat'  Republican  policy  of  this  country,  they 
ought  to  be  answered  fully,  and  if  I  do  not  entirely  satisfy  the  gentle- 
man from  Iowa  or  any  other  gentleman  on  the  other  side  of  the 
House,  I  trust  that  you  will  keep  on  interrupting  and  asking  questions 
until  I  have  satisfied  every  one  of  you.  I  have  been  studying  the 
watch  business  for  some  time  now,  and  I  feel  that  I  know  something 
about  it  and  I  am  willing  to  give  to  you,  who  control  the  situation 
here  and  who  alone  can  say  whether  or  not  there  shall  be  a  revision  of 
the  tariff  schedules,  the  benefit  of  my  labors."  [Applause  on  the 
Democratic  side.] 

"Watch  movements,  whether  imported  in  cases  or  not,  if  having  not 
more  than  seven  jewels,  35  cents  each;  if  h-aving  more  than  seven 
jewels  and  not  more  than  eleven  jewels,  50  cents  each;  if  having 
more  than  eleven  jewels  and  not  more  than  fifteen  jewels,  75  cents 
each;  if  having  more  than  fifteen  jewels  and  not  more  than  seventeen 
jewels,  $1.25  each;  if  having  more  than  seventeen  jewels,  $3  each,  and 
in  addition  thereto,  on  all  the  foregoing,  25  per  centum  ad  valorem; 
watch  cases  and  parts  of  watches,  including  watch  dials,  chronometers, 
parts  of  watches,  etc.,  40  per  centum  ad  valorem.  Aii  jewels  for  use 
in  the  manufacture  of  watches  or  clocks,  10  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

"Now,  in  order  to  further  answer  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  upon  a 
matter  about  which  I  am  surprised  he  is  not  fully  informed,  I  want 
to  say  that  American-made  goods  sent  abroad  can  be  brought  back 
without  paying  any  duty  if  they  come  back  in  the  same  condition  that 
they  were  in  when  they  went  abroad.  You  must  satisfy  the  tarifl' 
officers,  not  that  they  are  in  the  same  condition  perhaps,  but  that  they 
have  not  been  improved  or  advanced  in  value  while  abroad." 


HOW  THE  WATCH  TRUST  DOES  BUSINESS. 

"I  have  here  a  contract  which  the  American  Waltham  Watch  Com- 
pany exacts  from  every  retailer  in  this  country  who  buys  the  better 
grades  of  watches,  and  in  watch  parlance  the  better  grades  of  watches 
are  called  'railroad  movements.'  No  dealer  who  buys  a  railroad  move- 
ment in  the  United  States  is  permitted  to  sell  that  movement  for  less 
than  the  minimum  price  fixed  in  that  contract.  Under  this  contrnct 
the  Waltham  Company  exercises  the  right  to  control  absolutely  the 
men  who  shall  be  jobbers  of  watches  in  the  United  States.  In  order 
to  show  you  how  it  is  possible  for  this  business  to  be  built  up  back  of 
this  tariff — a  nefarious,  outrageous  business  like  this — I  am  going  to 
put  the  contract  of  the  Waltham  Company  in  the  Record.  It  has 
never  been  published;  and  I  am  not  permitted  to  give  the  name  of  the 
retail  dealer  who  furnished  me  with  this  copy.  But  I  propose  that  the 
country  now  shall  know,  and  I  ask  the  Clerk  to  read  the  contract  at 
the  bottom  of  this  bill,  beginning  with  the  words,  "Bill  to  retailers." 

The  clerk  read  as  follows : 

BILL  TO  RETAILERS— CONDITIONS  OF  SALE. 

"Each  Waltham  railroad  movement  specified  in  this  bill  is  sold  sub- 
ject to  all  the  conditions  hereinafter  and  in  the  Waltham  contract  no- 
tice accompanying  such  movement  set  forth,  which  conditions,  the 
purchaser  named  herein,  by  the  acceptance  of  such  movement,  agrees 
with  the  undersigned  company  to  keep  and  perform,  viz.  ( 1 )  Retail 
watch  dealers  must  not  dispose  of  said  movements  except  by  sale; 
(2)  must  sell  said  movements  only  to  customers  purchasing  the  same 
for  their  own  or  others'  use  and  not  for  resale ;  ( 3 )  and  must  not  ad- 
vertise or  sell  any  of  said  movements  or  any  other  Waltham  railroad 
movements  at  lesg  than  the  following  net  prices,  respectively : 


AMERICAN  MANUFACTURES.  63 

'Vanguard,  twenty-three  jewels,  $35;  Vanguard,  twenty-one  jewels, 
$30;  Vanguard,  nineteen  jewels,  $28;  Crescent  St.,  twenty-one  jewels, 
$26;  Crescent  St.,  nineteen  jewels,  $24;  Appleton,  Tracy  &  Co.  Pre- 
mier, $21;  Riverside  Maximus  Lever  Setting,  $60;  Riverside  Lever 
Setting,  $25. 

"(4)  All  watch  dealers  handling  these  or  any  other  Waltham  rail- 
road movements  are  to  be  considered  retail  dealers,  except  those  named 
as  jobbers  in  the  latest  list  of  jobbers  issued  by  said  company.  (5) 
A  breach  of  any  of  these  conditions  as  to  any  Waltham  railroad  move- 
ment shall  revest  in  said  company  the  title  of  such  movement  and  of 
all  other  Waltham  railroad  movements  in  the  possession  of  the  vio- 
lator, and  upon  tendering  the  price  paid  by  the  holder  of  such  move- 
ments the  said  company  shall  be  entitled  to  retake  possession  of  the 
same. 

"A  duplicate  of  this  bill  has  been  sent  to  the  undersigned,  by  whom 
these  conditions  will  be  enforced. 

"AMERICAN  WALTHAM  WATCH  COMPANY, 

"Waltham,  Mass. 

"Now,  I  want  to  put  in  the  Record,  and  I  want  to  have  it  read  here, 
the  contract  the  Elgin  Company  exacts  from  other  companies,  and 
this  will  be  the  first  time  this  contract  has  ever  been  printed." 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

"RETAIL  BILL. 

"The  Elgin  movements  specified  herein  are  sold  subject  to  the  fol- 
lowing license  conditions  (see  license  accompanying  each  movement)  : 
(1)  The  retail  purchaser  may  advertise  and  sell  the  same  only  to 
buyers  for  use_,  and  at  not  less  than  the  following  prices:  No.  214 
Veritas,  $35;  239  and  274  Veritas,  $30;  240  Raymond,  $24;  Father 
Time,  hunting  or  open  face,  $26;  17-jewel  B.  W.  Raymond,  hunting 
or  open  face,  $21;  270,  $28;  280,  $23.  (2)  Acceptance  of  the  move- 
ments is  assent  to  these  conditions.  (3)  Any  violation  of  the  license 
conditions  revokes  and  terminates  all  right  and  license  as  to  move- 
ments and  all  other  Elgin  movements  in  the  violator's  possession." 

Mr.  Rainey  continued  by  describing  each  class  of  watch  sold  in 
the  same  manner. 

On  February  20,  1906,  Mr.  Williams,  of  Mississippi,  introduced 
tHe  following  bill,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means  and  ordered  to  be  printed: 

"A  bill  to  reduce  the  duties  on  watches  imported  into  the  United 
States  from  foreign  countries. 

"Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the 
duty  levied,  collected,  and  paid  upon  watches  imported  into  the  United 
States  from  foreign  countries  shall  be  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

"Sec.  2.  That  all  provisions  of  the  law  in  conflict  with  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  are  hereby  repealed." 

But  the  Republicans  refused  to  consider  it. 
Mr.  Rainey  then  produced  the  receipts  of  the  American  Express 
Company  for  $130,000. 

"I  hold  in  my  hand  over  $130,000  of  American  Express  Company's 
recei2>ts  showing  that  within  the  fifteen  months  prior  to  the  time  he 
started  this  particular  business,  he  cabled  abroad  in  American  money 
over  $130,000  through  the  American  Express  Company  for  the  pur- 
pose of  purchasing  abroad  American-made  watches." 

Also  a  list  of  watch  dealers  in  various  parts  of  the  world  and 
he  charged  that  to  each  one  of  these  watch  dealers  the  American 
Watch  Trust — the  Elgin   Company  and  the  Waltham   Company 


64  WAGE^  AND  INCOMES. 

and  the  Keystone  Company  and  the  rest  of  them — sell  watches 
for  a  mere  fraction  of  the  price  they  sell  to  the  American  retailer, 
and  challenged  them  to  show  by  their  books  that  they  do  not  do  so. 
The  following  is  the  list  referred  to: 

"Mr.  Evan  Roberts,  30  St.  Georges  square,  Regents  Park,  London; 
Mr.  J.  Blanckensee  &  Co.,  48  Frederick  street,  Birmingham,  England ; 
Mr.  Marcel  Bourdais,  62  Ruede,  Tavernue,  Paris;  Ballantyne  &  Son, 
52  Virginia  street,  Glasgow,  Scotland ;  MM.  Les  Fils  de  Braunschweig, 
Chaux  de  Fonde,  Switzerland;  E.  Collins  &  Co.,  34  Pritchard. 
Johannesburg,  Africa;  George  &  Co.,  Scotland  road,  Liverpool,  Eng 
land;  Hopkins  &  Hopkins,  No.  1  Lower  Sackville,  Dublin,  Ireland; 
Mr.  Hurtis  Sendre,  6  Old  China  Bazaar  street,  Calcutta,  India;  Mr. 
Otto  Heerman,  34  Ferdinand  Strasse,  Hamburg,  Germany." 


WAGES  AND  INCOMES. 

HOW  THE  TARIFF  HAS  AFFECTED  THEM. 

The  question  of  the  increase  or  decrease  of  wages  and  incomes 
is  comparatively  an  uncertain  quantity  as  to  the  employees  of  the 
wjiole  country.  The  Census  Bureau  says  no  reliable  comparison 
can  be  made  between  the  figures  for  1890  and  1900.  The  Labor 
Bureau,  in  the  Bulletin  for  July,  1905,  published  the  "Relative 
weekly  earnings  per  employee  and  for  all  employees  1890  to 
1904  (see  page  15),  which  indicates  an  average  increase  in 
weekly  earnings  of  12.3  per  cent,  from  1897  to  1904,  the  relative 
numbers  being  given  in  1897  as  99.2  and  in  1904  112.2." 

SPEAKER  CANNON'S  STATISTICS. 

Speaker  Cannon,  in  his  "keynote"  speech  delivered  August  16 
at  Danville,  Illinois,  gave  the  voters  some  large  statistics  to 
ponder  over,  but  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  Mr.  Cannon  would  ngt 
have  used  these  figures  if  he  had  known  their  full  significance. 
He  said:  "The  average  number  of  wage-earners  in  1900,  as 
given  by  the  Census,  was  4,251,535,  in  1905  the  number  was  5,- 
492,178,  not  including  those  in  hand  trades."  "The  total  wages 
paid,"  said  Mr.  Cannon,  "in  1890  amounted  to  $1,891,209,696,  and 
in  1905  to  $2,661,409,858."  So  he  acknowledges  that  during  these 
fifteen  years  average  yearly  wages  increased  slightly  less  than 
9.4  per  cent. 

During  the  same  period,  that  is  from  1890  to  1905,  the  value  of 
manufactured  products,  according  to  Census  figures,  increased 
58.7  per  cent.  Does  Mr.  Cannon  and  other  stand-pat  Congressmen 
call  that  a  fair  deal?  An  increase  of  58.7  per  cent,  for  the  Trusts 
and  only  an  increase  of  9.4  per  cent,  for  the  wage-earners.  That 
certainly  proves  trust  prosperity,  but  where  does  the  prosperity 
for  the  wage-earner  come  in  when  his  cost  of  living  has  increased 
47  per  cent. 

Speaker  Cannon,  in  his  fight  with  labor,  should  avoid  statistics, 
for  they  are  a  two-edged  sword  in  the  hands  of  anyone  that  does 
not  understand  their  significance,  as  Mr.  Cannon  evidently  does 
not. 


WAGES'  AND  INCOMES.  65 


As  most  of  these  statistics  are  totally  unreliable,  those  for  the 
Census  of  1890,  notoriously  so,  and  those  furnished  from  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  being  juggled  to  make  a  partisan  showing,  Mr. 
Cannon  and  other  Republican  orators  should  confine  themselves 
to  glittering  generalities  and  attempt  to  prove  nothing. 

How  much  wages  have  increased  during  the  past  nine  years 
can  be  best  answered  by  each  individual  for  himself.  He  knows 
what  he  has  been  receiving  and  what  he  is  now  getting  and 
whether  his  wages  have  kept  pace  with  his  increased  expenses. 

WAGES  OF   RAILROAD   EMPLOYEES. 

The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  receives  a  report  each 
year  from  each  railroad  corporation  of  its  income  and  expenses. 
One  of  the  items  of  this  report  is  the  number  of  employees  and 
the  wages  paid  them.  As  the  wages  of  railroad  men  must  about 
keep  pace  with  those  in  other  industries,  these  official  govern- 
ment statistics  are  a  fair  indication  of  wages  paid  in  other  in- 
dustries for  the  year  given.  In  the  Statistics  of  Railways  in  the 
United  States  for  1904,  the  last  published  by  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission,  on  page  43,  will  be  found  the  average  daily 
wages  paid  to  each  class  of  railroad  employee  as  follows: 

Class.  United  States. 

1904  1903  1902  1901  1900  1899  1898  1897 

General     officers 11.61  11.27  11.17  10.97  10.45  10.03  9.73  9.54 

Otlifer      officers 6.07  5.76  5.60  5.56  5.22  5.18  5.21  5.12 

General    office    clerks 2.22  2.21  2.18  2.19  2.19  2.20  2.25  2.18 

Station     agents 1.93  1.87  1.80  1.77  1.75  1.74  1.73  1.73 

Other     station     men 1.69  1.64  1.61  1.59  1.60  1.60  1.61  1.62 

Engineraen     4.10  4.01  3.84  3.78  3.75  3.72  3.72  3.65 

Firemen     2.35  2.28  2.20  2.16  2.14  2.10  2.09  2.05 

Conductors     3.50  3.38  3.21  3.17  3.17  3.13  3.13  3.07 

Other    trainmen 2.27  2.17  2.04  2.00  1.96  1.94  1.95  1.90 

Machinists     2.61  2.50  2.36  2.32  2.30  2.29  2.28  2.23 

Carpenters     2.26  2.19  2.08  2.i)G  2.04  2.03  2.02  2.01 

Other     shopmen 1.91  1.86  1.78  1.75  1.73  1.72  1.70  1.71 

Section     foremen 1.78  1.78     1.72     1.71  1.68  1.68  1.C9  1.70 

Other    trackmen    .  . : 1.33  1.31  1.25  1.23  1.22  1.18  1.16  1.16 

Switch  tenders,  crossing 

tenders  and  watchmen  1.77  1.76  1.77  1.74  1.80  1.77  1.74  1.72 
Telegraph  operators 

and    dispatchers     2.15  2.08  2.01  .1.98  1.96  1.93  1.92  1.90 

Employees— acco'int  lioatiig 

equipment     2.17  2.11  2.00     1.97  1.92  1.89  1.S9  1.8(5 

All  other  employees 

and    laborers     1.82  1.77  1.71  1.69  1.71  1.68  1.67  1.64 

These  wages  show  an  average  increase  of  11  per  cent.  Since 
1904  there  has  been  a  further  increase,  which,  if  in  the  same  pro- 
portion, would  make  the  increase  in  1906  about  14  per  cent.  So 
the  railroad  men  are  not  participating  in  the  prosperity  of  the 
railroad  managers  and  stockholders.  What  they  bought  for  $1 
of  wages  in  1897  now  costs  them  $1.47,  and  they  have  only  $1.14 
to  pay  it  with.  The  tariff  fostered  trusts  and  inflation  have  raised 
prices  47  per  cent,  but  the  average  wages  have  only  increased  14 
per  cent.  To  come  out  even  the  man  who  was  receiving  $2  a 
day  in  1897  should  now  be  getting  $2.94.  It  is  fair  to  assume  that 
all  labor  is  suffering  from  similar  conditions,  except  perhaps  a 
few  well-organized  trades,  who  have  been  able  to  force  their 
wages  somewhat  beyond  the  average  increase,  but  only  after 
great  strikes"  and  costly  struggles. 


66  COST  OF  LIVING  HIGHER. 


No  wonder  Organized  Labor  is  opposing  the  Republican  party, 
not  only  on  the  question  of  labor  legislation,  but  on  the  far 
greater  issue  of  legislating  for  monopolists  and  giving  them  the 
opportunity  to  plunder  the  great  mass  of  the  people. 

HOW  THE  TARIFF  PLUNDERS  THOSE   WITH    LIMITED 
INCOMES. 

Those  whose  incomes  are  stationary  and  who  get  no  increase 
to  correspond  with  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  living  are  in  worse 
plight  than  other  people.  The  aged  man  or  widow  with  a  small 
but  fixed  income  finds  nearly  one-half  of  its  purchasing  power 
cut  off  and  themselves  unable  from  age  or  infirmity  from  working 
to  increase  their  incomes.  Nothing  remains  for  such  unfor- 
tunates but  the  pinching  economy  that  comes  hard,  when  com- 
fort should  be  the  rule.  The  grasping  Trusts  and  Corporations 
are,  through  the  monopoly,  created  by  protectionism  sucking  the 
life  blood  of  those  with  limited  incomes  to  the  tune  of  47  per 
cent.  That  is  Republican  usury  made  legal  by  the  statute  known 
as  the.Dingley  tariff  law. 


COST  OF  LIVING  HIGHER. 

AMERICANS    PAY   HIGH    TAXES    FOR    BENEFIT   OF 
FOREIGNERS. 

"FIGURES  WON'T  LIE!" 

"The  Bureau  of  Labor  at  Washington  issues  a  bulletin  to  explain 
that  the  cost  of  living  is  the  highest  in  sixteen  years.  Any  housewife 
could  have  told  them  that  after  doing  her  daily  shopping." — New 
York  World. 

That  statement  of  fact  is  a  reminder,  by  way  of  contrast,  of  one  of 
the  funny  incidents  of  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1904.  Everybody 
will  remember — for  who  could  possibly  forget? — the  promulgation  by 
that  bureau,  just  as  the  dullness  that  characterized  the  first  two 
months  of  that  campaign  was  beginning  to  be  relieved  by  a  slight 
semblance  of  interest  and  excitement,  of  a  bulletin  showing  on  its 
face  that  the  cost  of  living  had  been  for  a  considerable  time  tending 
downward.  As  that  statement  was  flatly  contradicted  by  the  experi- 
ence of  every  family  in  the  United  States,  and,  therefore,  all  the 
people  knew  that  it  was  the  reverse  of  true,  it  naturally  caused  some 
indignation.  But  that  feeling  gave  way  to  innocent  merriment  as 
soon  as  the  country  had  time  to  take  in  and  assimilate  its  grotesque 
absurdity. 

Truth  has  nothing  to  fear  from  fiction,  even  though  it  comes  in  the 
shape  of  official  statistics.  For,  in  spite  of  the  old  saw,  "figures  won't 
lie,"  it  has  come  to  be  generally  understood  that  "in  the  hands  of  one 
'3ntirely  great"  figures  may  be  induced  to  do  the  most  stupendous 
lying.  In  1906  it  is  as  well  known  that  Americans  are  paying  heavy 
taxes  not  for  protection  of  Americans,  hut  for  the  benefit  of  foreign 
consumers  of  American  products,  as  it  was  in  1904  that  the  cost  of 
living  had  long  been  soaring.  And  it  is  this  universal  knowledge  that 
causes  recent  lame  and  impotent  attempts  to  deny  that  our  manufac- 
turers show  special  and  great  favor  to  foreign  customers  to  be  dis- 
missed with  mingled  contempt  and  amusement  " — Washington  Post, 
May  4,  1906. 


PRICES  AND  WAGES.  QI 

PRICES  AND  WAGES. 

THE   INCREASED  COST  OF   LIVING. 

As  the  present  tariff  law  has  greatly  advanced  the  cost  of  liv- 
ing, it  is  important  to  know  just  how  much  is  to  be  charged  to 
that  Republican  legislation  and  to  discover  the  benefit,  if  any,  to 
offset  that  drain  on  the  American  pocketbook  and  if  wages  have 
kept  pace  with  the  increased  expenditures. 

The  acknowledged  reliable  figures  of  the  trend  of  prices  are 
Dun's  Index  numbers,  issued  every  month  by  the  R.  G.  Dun  & 
Company  Mercantile  Agency  in  Dun's  Review.  These  figures 
are  scientifically  arrived  at  and  the  following  explanation  of  the 
method  of  preparation  is  taken  from  the  Government  report  of 
the  Monthly  Summary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  for  April,  1904, 
under  the  title,  "Prices  Proportioned  to  Consumption": 

"In  the  following  table  the  course  of  prices  and  commodities  is 
shown,  with  due  alloAvance  for  the  relative  importance  of  each.  Quo- 
tations of  all  the  necessaries  of  life  are  taken,  including  whiskey 
and  tobacco,  and  in  each  case  the  price  is  multiplied  by  the  annual 
per  capita  consumption,  which  precludes,  and  one  commodity  having 
more  than  its  proper  weight  in  the  aggregate. 

"For  example,  the  price  of  a  bushel  of  wheat  is  multiplied  by  5.55, 
representing  the  annual  per  capita  consumption  of  4  2-3  bushels  of 
food  and  the  remainder  as  allowance  for  seed.  The  price  per  pound 
for  coffee  is  taken  nine  times,  of  cheese  2.3,  of  chemicals  only  frac- 
tions of  an  ounce  in  some  cases.  Thus,  wide  fluctuations  in  the 
price  of  an  article  little  used  do  not  materially  affect  the  index,  but 
changes  in  the  great  staples  have  a  large  influence  in  advancing  or 
depressing  the  total.  For  convenience  of  comparison  and  economy 
of  space  the  prices  are  grouped  in  seven  classes:  Breadstuffs  in- 
clude many  quotations  of  wheat,  corn,  oats,  rye,  barley,  beans  and 
peas;  meats  include  live  hogs,  beef,  sheep,  and  many  provisions,  lard, 
tallow,  etc.;  dairy  and  garden  products  embrace  eggs,  vegetables, 
fruits,  milk,  butter,  cheese,  etc.;  clothing  covers  the  raw  material 
of  each  industry,  and  many  quotations  of  woolen,  cotton,  silk  and 
rubber  goods,  as  well  as  hides,  leather,  boots  and  shoes;  metals  in- 
clude various  quotations  of  pig  iron  and  partially  manufactured 
and  finished  products,  as  well  as  the  minor  metals,  tin,  lead,  copper, 
etc.,  and  coal  and  petroleum;  miscellaneous  include  many  grades  of 
hard  and  soft  lumber,  lath,  brick,  lime,  glass,  turpentine,  hemp, 
linseed  oil,  paints,  fertilizers  and  drugs.  The  third  decimal  is  given 
for  accuracy  of  comparison;  thus,  $101,587  representing  $101.58  and 
seven-tenths  of  a  cent.  This  figure  does  not  purport  to  show  the 
exact  average  amount  cost  of  living  on  January  1,  1902,  because 
wholesale  prices  are  taken  and  all  luxuries  omitted.  Its  economic 
value  is  in  showing  the  percentage  of  advance  or  decline  from  month 
to  month." 

To  show  how  careful  Dun's  Review  is  to  quote  accurately  and 
to  weight  properly,  note  the  following  further  explanation  from 
J^un's  Review  of  September  7,  1901: 

"In  many  cases  a  large  number  of  quotations  are  averaged  in  order 
to  secure  a  representative  price  for  the  commodity,  thus  avoiding  the 
special  effect  on  one  particular  grade  of  exceptional  conditions.  Both 
raw  materials  and  manufactured  products  are  included,  preventing 
the  excessive  influence  of  speculative  operations  in  the  former,  since 
markets  for  finished  products  are  more  stable.  In  these  cases  the 
per  capita  consumption  is  so  proportioned  as  to  avoid  duplication." 


68  PRICES  AND  WAGES. 

The  explanation  of  the  Dun  price  tables  not  only  indicates 
what  is  a  strictly  scientific  system,  it  also  condemns  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  methods  as  unscientific  and  unreliable.  The  Dun  price 
tables  are  prepared  by  the  leading  commercial  authority  of  this 
country.  They  are  not  made  in  the  interest  of  any  political  party 
or  to  bolster  up  any  tariff  theory.  The  accuracy  of  these  price 
tables  as  indicating  the  relative  changes  in  the  cost  of  living  has 
never  been  questioned,  even  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor.  Why  the 
Labor  Bureau  should  adopt  another  and  totally  unscientific  sys- 
tem is  clear  to  those  familiar  with  the  exigencies  of  Republican 
politics. 

Following  is  a  table  showing  the  relative  cost  of  living  at  dif- 
ferent dates: 

DUN'S   INDEX   NUMBERS. 

1897        1900  1902  1904  1906 

July  1    July  1  July  1  July  1  July  1 

Breadstuff    10.589  14.898  20.534  18.244  17.923 

Meats    7.529     8.906  11.628  9.033  9.677 

Dairy  and   Garden    8.714  10.901  12.557  10.648  12.590 

Other  food    7.887     9.482  8.748  10.406  9.645 

Clothing    13.808  16.324  15.533  16.514  19.177 

Metals     11.642   14.834  16.084  15.428  16.649 

Miscellaneous     12.288  16.070  16.826  16.919  19.555 

Total 72.455  91.415  101.910  97.192  105.216 

The  year  1897  is  taken  as  the  initial  point  because  the  present 
tariff  law  was  enacted  and  became  in  force  on  July  24  of  that 
year,  and  the  odd  years  are  omitted  to  allow  space  for  the  table 
on  the  page.  The  general  trend,  however,  has  been  steadily  up- 
ward, except  in  the  semi-panic  of  1903,  when  the  numbers  fell 
away  to  99.456,  and  continued  to  decline  during  1904.  The  figures 
of  the  table  therefore  indicate  that  the  cost  of  living  has  in- 
creased 47  per  cent,  since  1897,  the  year  the  present  tariff  law  was 
enacted.  Apparently,  it  is  mounting  higher  and  higher  and  has 
made  new  records  each  year,  except  in  1903-4,  since  the  trust  era 
was  brought  to  its  climax  by  the  passage  of  the  present  tariff 
law. 

The  tables  published  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor 
are  not  prepared  on  the  same  scientific  basis  as  are  Dun's  figures, 
for  the  proportionate  amount  of  each  class  of  produce  and  article 
consumed  is  not  allowed  for,  so  that  the  article,  such  as  nutmegs, 
bears  the  same  relative  proportion  as  flour.  Yet,  misleading  as 
are  the  tables  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor,  even  these 
show  that  the  average  wholesale  prices  for  the  year  1905  were 
29.02  per  cent,  higher  than  they  were  for  the  year  1897.  (See 
Bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  March,  1906). 

ENGLISH    PRICES. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  trend  of  prices  in  England,  where 
there  are  no  protected  trusts,  that  country  being  on  a  tariff  for 
revenue  basis.  For  years  the  London  Economist  has  published 
figures  prepared  on  a  somewhat  similar  basis  as  Dun's  although 
on  a  less  number  of  articles  and  not  weighted  so  scientifically 
and  the  figures  are  here  given  for  the  same  years  as  in  the  table 
of  Dun's  Index  numbers. 


PRICES  AND  WAGES,  69 

LONDON    ECONOMIST  INDEX   NUMBERS. 

Average  price  level  of  commodities  in  England  on  the  30th 
da>  of  June,  1897  to  1906,  showing  the  gradual  rise  in  prices  in 
the  free  trade  market,  due  to  increased  supply  of  gold.  The  fig- 
ures; are  taken  from  the  Index  Numbers  of  the  London  Economist, 
only  the  totals  being  given: 

June  30,  1897 1885 

June'  30,  1898 1915 

June  30,  1899 2028 

June  30,  1900 2211 

June  30,  1901 2007 

June  30,  1902 2003 

June  30,  1903 2127 

June  30,  1904 2130      , 

June  30,  1905 2163 

June  30,  1906 2362 

The  table  shows  that  prices  in  England,  where  there  are  no 
protected  trusts,  have  advanced  25^2  per  cent,  since  1897,  and 
therefore  there  must  be  some  underlying  cause  for  this  increase 
that  is  world  wide.  This  25 1/^  per  cent,  increase,  it  would  seem, 
has  been  caused  by  the  enormous  output  of  gold  and  consequent 
inflation  of  the  circulating  medium  during  the  past  few  years 
v,'hich  has  decreased  the  purchasing  power  of  gold,  as  measured 
in  labor  and  commodities.  Therefore,  there  has  been  a  general 
upward  trend  of  prices  to  meet  this  decrease  in  the  value  of  gold 
on  an  average  of  25 1^  per  cent. 

SAUERBECK'S   PRICES   INDEX. 

As  further  evidence  of  the  general  trend  of  prices  and  proof 
of  the  Democratic  contention  in  1896  of  the  quantitative  theory 
of  money  that  inflation  of  the  circulating  medium  advances 
p-.ices  and  a  reduction  in  the  circulating  medium  leads  to  lower 
1  rice  levels  is  shown  in  the  tables  below.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  even  despised  silver  feels  the  force  of  gold  inflation 
and  has  advanced  in  value,  as  shown  by  the  table  below,  from 
Ihe  relative  value  of  35.6  to  49.4,  an  advance  of  over  38  per  cent. 
Since  these  figures  were  published  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  has  purchased  silver  at  66  cents  an  ounce,  equal  to  nearly 
33  pence  per  ounce,  which  will  advance  the  index  figure  to  54.1. 

"A.  Sauerbeck,  London,  issues  the  following  index  numbers  t.f 
the  prices  of  45  commodities,  under  date  of  August  3,  the  average 
of  the  eleven  years  1867-1877  being  100: 

Monthly 
Average.  Numbers. 

1878-1887 79  Dec,   1889 73.7 

1886-1895 68  Feb.,   1895 60.0 

1890-1899 66  July,   1896 59.2 

1896-1905 68  July,   1900 76.2 

1894 76  Dec,  1901 68.4 

1896 61  July,  1905 72.5 

1900 75  Dec,  1905 74.9 

1901 70  Feb.,  1906 75.0 

1902 69  Mar.,  1906 75.7 

190^ 69  April,  1906 76.5 

1904 70  May,  1906 77.0 

1905 72  June.  1906 76.9 

July,  1906 76.4 


^0  PRICES  AND  WAGES. 


"The  index  number  shows  a  further  moderate  reduction.  Ainong 
articles  of  food,  flour,  barley,  maize  and  tea  ruled  slightly  lower, 
while  sugar  and  coffee  were  somewhat  dearer.  For  animal  food 
products  there  was  scarcely  any  change.  In  the  case  of  materials 
iron  and  copper  were  a  little  firmer,  but  tin  declined  from  £176%  to 
£170%  per  ton.  Cotton  and.  jute  were  easier,  and  foreign  wool  fell 
5-10  per  cent.  No  alteration  occurred  for  sundry  materials  in  the 
aggregate. 

"Taking  articles  of  food  and  materials  separately  the  index  num- 
bers compare  thus   (1867-1877  equal  100)  : 

Average  1895  1896 

1878-87.     1886-95.        1896-05.          Feb.  July 

Food     84  71  67-  63.8  60.0 

Materials     76  66  69  57.0  58.6 

1900  1900  1905  1906 

Feb.  .July  Dec.  June  July 

Food     65.8  71.2  68.7  09.1  68.7 

•Materials     81.9  79.8  79.4  82.7  82.0 

"Silver — The  prices  and  index  numbers  compare  thus  (60.84d  per 
oz.  being  the  parity  of  one  gold  to  15i^  silver,  ecjual  100)  : 

Price.  Index 
No. 

Average,    1886-1895 40   ^d  66.2 

Average,     1896-1905 27   %d  44.6 

Average,     1896 30   %d  50.5 

End   December,    1900 29  9-16d  48.6 

Lowest    November,    1902 21   ll-16d  35.6 

End  December,  1904 28   %d  46.6 

End    March,    1905 25  lB-16d  42.4 

End    December,    1905 30d  49.3 

End    June,    1906 30  3-16d  49.6 

End    July,    1906 30  l-16d  49.4 

HOW  THE  TRUSTS  HAVE   INCREASED   PRICES. 

The  above  index  numbers  of  Sauerbeck's  show  an  average  in- 
crease in  prices  in  England  of  27  per  cent,  since  1896,  which  is 
1%  per  cent,  higher  than  shown  by  the  London  Economist  fig- 
ures, probably  caused  by  the  larger  number  of  articles  used  in  the 
Sauerbeck  grouping  than  by  the  Economist.  But  taking  the 
Sauerbeck  numbers  as  approximately  correct  they  show  there  has 
been  this  world-wide  increase  in  values  of  27  per  cent,  as  against 
an  increase  in  the  United  States  of  47  per  cent.  The  combined 
opinion  of  nearly  all  experts  charges  the  increase  in  world-wide 
piices  to  the  diminished  purchasing  power  of  gold  since  it  has 
become  more  plentiful,  but  that  only  applies  to  the  27  per  cent, 
world-wide  increase  in  prices.  To  what  must  be  charged  the  20 
per  cent,  extra  increase  in  this  country?  The  reason  is  plain 
and  incontrovertible,  that  the  tariff-fostered  trusts  have,  by  rea- 
son of  the  protection  granted  them  by  the  Dingley  act,  been  able 
to  force  up  prices  beyond  the  world's  high  level.  * 

THE   FARMERS  AND  TRUST  PLUNDERING. 

It  is  estimated  by  statistical  experts  that  the  special  privileges 
granted  to  the  Trusts  and  Combines  by  the  Republican  party 
through  the  tariff  and  other  legislation  takes  from  the  people, 
without  giving  anything  in  return,  about  two  billion  dollars' 
worth  of  products  annually — $125  per  family  each  year^  This 
estimate  was  published  in  the  Pennsylvania  Grange  News  Sep- 
tember, 1904,  the  authorized  organ  of  the  organized  farmers  of 


PRICES  AND  WAGES.  71 


that  state.  These  figures  are  arrived  at  by  adding  together  the 
monopoly  extortions  from  farmers,  business  men  and  wage-earn- 
ers they  probably  exceed  two  billion  dollars  per  annum.  This  is 
bai-ed  upon  four  estimates. 

(1)  In  the  last  annual  report  of  the  Master  of  the  National 
Grunge,  Mr.  Jones,  of  Indiana,  a  Republican,  says:  "More  than 
$150,000,000  has  been  lost  to  the  live  stock  industry  in  the  past 
year  by  the  manipulations  of  the  meat  trust.    If  the  entire  prod- 

^uct  of  the  farm— wheat,  corn,  hay,  cotton,  live  stock,  dairy  and 
fruit— is  taken  into  account,  farmers  have  lost  more  than  $700,- 
000,000  in  the  past  year  through  manipulations  of  combines  and 
t:nu.ts.  *  *  *  Farmers  have  also  suffered  another  great  loss 
in  the  purchase  of  supplies  needed  in  their  business." 

(2)  The  yearly  earnings  in  all  the  gainful  occupations  are 
about  twenty  billion  dollars.  That  one-tenth  of  this  goes  to 
monopolists  from  excessive  charges,  is  a  conservative  estimate. 
For  example,  the  dividends  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  for  1901 
were  48  per  cent,  of  its  capitalization.  And  47  other  trusts  aver- 
aged 7.44  per  cent,  on  their  capitalization  of  that  year.  This 
capitalization  averaged  about  three  times  the  amount  of  capital 
invested,  making  a  22  per  cent,  dividend  on  capital  invested. 
In  railways  the  profits  for  1901  were  as  high  as  16  per  cent,  on 
the  par  value  of  some  of  the  stocks,  which  doubtless  were  half 
watered,  thus  making  a  rate  as  high  as  32  per  cent,  of  the  capital 
invested  in  some  roads. 

(3)  The  capitalization  of  certain  specified  monopolies  of  the 
country  is  shown  in  "The  Truth  About  Trusts"  to  be  twenty 
billions  of  dollars,  while  all  the  other  capital  in  the  country  is 
only  eighty  billions  of  dollars.  In  other  words,  the  capitalization 
of  the  principal  monopolies  is  one-fifth  the  total  capitalization  of 
the  country,  and  much  of  the  monopoly  capitalization,  such  as 
Standard  Oil  stock  and  street  railway  stocks,  is  earning  so  much 
that  it  sells  at  from  two  to  eight  times  its  face  value. 

(4)  The  tax  levied  last  year  by  means  of  the  monopoly  prices 
of  the  American  Steel  Trust  has  been  carefully  estimated  by  Mr. 
Byron  W.  Holt,  an  eminent  statistician.  He  places  it  at  $160,- 
000,000.    This  of  itself  is  ten  dollars  per  family  for  the  year. 

REPUBLICAN    OPINIONS   OF   THE    DINGLEY   TARIFF    LAW. 

From  Speech  of  Governor  Cummins  of  Iowa. 

"All  the  robberies  and  thefts  committed  by  all  the  insurance  officers 
since  life  insurance  was  first  originated  do  not  amount  to  as  much 
extortion  as  the  Dingley  bill  for  one  year." 

Authorized  Interview  at  Washington,  D.  C,  of  Alvin  H.  Sanders, 
^        President  of  the  American  Reciprocal  Tariff  League. 

"I  have  not  abandoned  hope  that  this  Congress  will  make  some 
move  in  the  interest  of  fairer  trade  relations  with  our  foreign  cus- 
tomers. It  is  inconceivable  to  me  that  the  leaders  of  the  Republican 
party  should  commit  the  political  blunder  of  going  before  the  people 
this  fall  with  stand-patism  as  one  of  the  main  issues.  The  corn-belt 
States  will  sooner  or  later  send  men  to  Washington  who  will  represent 
their  interests  in  an  aggressive  way  on  this  proposition.  They  want 
honest  protection  to  interests  that  need  it,  but  they  insist  upon  an 


72  .  PRICES  AND  WAGES. 

energetic  effort  being  made  to  open  tlie  markets  of  Continental  Europe 
to  our  corn,  wheat,  flour,  beef,  pork,  cattle,  hogs,  etc.  They  believe 
they  are  being  sacrificed  at  the  behest  of  certain  manufacturing  inter- 
ests that  do  not  need  the  excessive  tariffs  provided  by  the  Dingley 
law  of  1897. 

*'If  we  could  'tote  fai*-'  with  Continental  Europe  we  could  sell  at 
least  $100,000,000  worth  more  of  American  agricultural  products  than 
we  are  now  supplying.  Surely  this  is  a  matter  entitled  to  the  serious 
consideration  of  the  National  Legislature.  We  have  been  selling  to 
Germany,  even  under  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  us  in  recent  years, 
more  than  $50,000,000  worth  of  farm  products  other  tlian  cotton  and 
tobacco.  That  this  could  be  run  up  to  $100,000,000  under  fair  recip- ' 
rocal  arrangements  is  self-evident.  The  idea,  therefore,  that  we  can 
view  with  equanimity  the  closing  of  that  outlet  for  our  foreign  sur- 
plus, and  that  we  can  afford  to  disregard  the  European  tariff  combine 
against  us,  is  a  proposition  that  cannot  be  successfully  defended  in 
the  Middle  States. 

"That  representatives  of  the  great  farming  States  should  lend  them- 
selves to  the  perpetuation  of  a  policy  that  is  robbing  our  producers  of 
important  vents  for  the  ever-growing  surplus  of  our  farms  appears  to 
me  a  monstrous  proposition." 

Interview  in  New  York  Sun,  November  14,  1905,  of  Representative 
Babcock,  of  Wisconsin. 

"What  would  revision  by  the  coming  Congress,  through  the  com- 
mittees of  House  and  Senate,  as  now  constituted,  amount  to?  Those 
committees  are  dominated  by  men  who  favor  the  high  protection  idea, 
Chairman  Payne  and  Representatives  Dalzell  and  Grosvenor  would 
head  the  Republican  sub-committee  to  draw  the  bill,  and  none  of  them 
would  support  such  a  measure,  as  the  Republican  friends  of  revision 
want.' 

Speaker  Cannon  in  New  York  Tribune,  December,  1905. 

"If  some  fellow  did  introduce  a  tariff  bill,  and  it  was  argued  and 
argued,  and  at  the  end  of  twelve  months  its  advocates  could  gather 
together  enough  votes  to  pass  it,  the  country  being  held  up  by  the 
tail  in  the  meantime,  I  think  you'd  find  that  the  new  law  would*  have 
just  as  many  outrageous  things  in  it  as  are  found  in  the  Dingley 
tariff  act." 


WHAT  REPUBLICANS  SAY  ON  TAklFF.  73 


WHAT  REPUBLICANS  SAY  ON  TARIFF. 

A    REPUBLICAN    GOVERNOR    INSISTS    ON    FREE    RAW 
MATERIAL. 

Governor  Guild  of  Massachusetts  is  quoted  as  saying:  "He 
would  not  run  for  governor  on  any  platform  less  liberal  than 
that  of  last  year.  He  insists  upon  putting  five  articles  on  the 
free  list — iron  ore,  coal,  lumber,  hides  and  paper  pulp  wood 
stock." 

Governor  Guild  is  another  Republican  governor  that  the  Roose- 
velt stand-pat  letter  leaves  outside  the  party  trenches. 

SPEAKER  CANNON'S  OPINION. 

An  extract  from  a  letter  written  by  Speaker  Cannon  to  Col. 
.John  N.  Taylor,  of  the  Knowles,  Taylor  &  Knowles  Pottery  Com- 
pany, at  East  Liverpool,  Ohio,  was  published  in  the  Washington 
Post  on  April  5,  as  follows: 

"I  am  satisfied  there  will  be  no  tariff  revision  this  Congress,  but  it 
goes  without  saying  that  the  desire  for  a  change  which  exists  in  the 
common  mind  will  drive  the  Republican  party,  if  continued  in  power, 
to  a  tariff  revision.  I  do  not  want  it,  but  it  will  come  in  the  not 
distant  future." 


74  Exports  of  manufactures. 

EXPORTS  OF  MANUFACTURES. 

LARGE   INCREASE   FOR  THE   LAST  YEAR. 

A  statement  issued  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  Department 
of  Commerce  and  Labor,  shows  that  the  exports  of  manufactures 
for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1905,  amounted  to  $543,620,297, 
against  $452,445,629  in  the  preceding  year.  The  growth  in  ex- 
ports of  manufactures  far  exceeds  the  growth  of  population  or 
the  growth  in  commerce  as  a  whole. 

Iron  and  steel  manufacturers  supply  about  one-fourth  of  the  manu- 
factured articles  exported,  the  total  in  1905  having  been  $134,727,921, 
as  against  $111,948,586  in  the  preceding  year,  an  increase  of  nearly 
twenty-three  million  dollars.  Steel  rails  showed  an  increase  of 
$6,000  000,  chietiy  in  shipments  to  Canada,  South  America,  Mexico, 
the  West  Indies,  and  Japan  and  other  oriental  countries,  in  several 
chi^erv  .l^.n  r^  development  is  proceeding  at  a  rapid  rate.  Ma- 
over  Tgof  A  Ztn-^""  '^TT  ^^  "^^^^  ^^^^  «i^  ^"lli«n  dollars 
rioiomotivt  to  lap'ri  f "''  ''  *^  ^"^^^  '""'''^'^  '^  -^P-^« 
1905,  as  a-ainst  74  ?n  ;>.  ^''^'''^^  ^^"^^"^  ^^'"  ^^^^  thither  in 
increased  S  purchases  of' Ar-'"'  ^'^''  ^^"^^"  ""^  Argentina 
increased  her  mirnh.f      /  American  sewing  machines,  while  Japan 

wareTacht^^rbsSrtiri^tr^^^^        -^^^^^  -<^  ^^^^^-s'  ha^rd- 

the^Xm'oT'secl^f^''''  consisting  largely  of  pigs  and  bars,  form 
rne  item  of  second  importance,  the  total  being  $86,225,291  in  1905 
as  compared  with  $57,142,081  in  the  preceding  year.  This  growth 
tofr  "f^  ^?^'2?^'^^^  ^"  ^  single  year  is\ccounted  for^by  an 
V.hT  K-"'r^^  ^i?'.^n^'^^^  ^^  ^^P^^^«  to  China,  $3,000,000  to^  the, 
^4  ^00  on^r^MTv:  f'^^^'T  t^  ^^^^^^'  $3,000,000  to  Germany, 
to'othe?  countries^  $1,250,000  to  Russia,  and  nearly  $2,000,000 

Refined  mineral  oil  ranks  third  in  the  exports  of  manufactures, 
the  total  being  $71,888,317,  as  against  $71,753,552  in  the  preceding 
year,  ihe  quantity  increased  from  847,000,000  gallons  in  1904  to 
951,000,000  in  1905. 

Cotton  manufactures  present  one  of  the  striking  features  of  the 
year's  export  record,  having  advanced  from  $22,403,713  in  1904  to 
$49,666,080  in  the  year  just  ended.  The  growth  occurred  chiefly 
m  cotton  cloth  exports,  $14,696,199  being  the  total  '  in  1904  and 
$41,320,542  the  figure  for  1905.  To  China  there  was  an  increase 
of  about  400,000,000  yards  over  last  year's  exportation  of  $76,- 
900,000,  and  the  value  of  our  cotton  cloth  exports  to  that  country 
increased  from  $4,000,000  in  1904  to  $27,750,000  in  1905.  Japnn 
was  the  only  other  country  to  show  a  considerable  increase  in 
takings  from  us,  the  total  being  16,000,000  yards,  valued  at  $1,125,000, 
as  against  less  than  440,000  yards  in  1904,  valued  at  $55,000. 

Leather,  and  manufactures  of,  fourth  in  importance  in  the  list, 
showed  an  increase  of  $4,000,000,  the  total  in  1905  having  been 
$38,000,000,  as  compared  with  $34,000,000  in  the  preceding  year. 
In  this  class,  also,  Japan  should  be  credited  with  the  chief  in- 
crease. To  Japan  we  exported  16,000,000  pounds  of  sole  leather, 
valued  at  $4,146,428,  as  against  2,000,000  pounds,  with  a  valuation 
of  about  $500,000,  in  the  preceding  year.  The  increase  in  boots  and 
shoes  is  principally  in  exports  to  the  West  Indies  and  Mexico,  each 
of  those  countries  being  credited  with  about  $400,000  iii  excess  of 
the  1904  figures,  while  the  total  increase  in  boot  and  shoe  exports 
to  all  countries  was  but  little  over  $818,000. 


EXPORTS  OF  MANUFACTURES. 

# 


75 


AGRICULTURAL  IMPLEMENTS   EXPORTED. 

Other  important  articles  exported  were:  Agricultural  imple- 
ments, $20,750,000;  chemicals,  drugs,  dyes,  etc.,  nearly  $16,000,000; 
wood  manufactures,  $12,500,000;  cars,  carriages  and  vehicles,  $10,- 
666,000;  scientific  instruments,  $8,000,000;  paper  and  manufactures 
of,  $8,250,000;  paraffin  and  paraffin  wax,  $7,750,000;  fib^r  manu- 
factures, $6,750,000;  tobacco  manufactures,  $5,666,000;  books,  maps, 
etc.,  nearly  $5,000,000;  and  India  rubber  manufactures,  $4,750,000. 

The  following  table  shows  the  values  of  the  principal  articles  of 
domestic  manufacture  exported  from  the  United  States  in  the  fiscal 
years  1904  and  1905. 


Articles, 

Agricultural    implements 

Blacking    

Books,   maps,  etc 

Brass,  and  manufactures  of 

Bricks    

Candles   

Cars,  carriages,  and  vehicles 

Cement    

Chemicals  and  drugs 

Clocks  and  watches 

Copper,  and   manufactures  of 

Cotton    manufactures 

Earthen,  stone  and  chinaware 

Fiber  manufactures  other  than  of  cotton. 

Glass  and  glassware 

Gunpowder  and  other  explosives 

India-rubber    manufactures 

Instruments    and    apparatus    for    scientific 

purposes    

Iron  and  steel  manufactures 

Jewelry,  and  manf.  of  gold  and  silver.  . . 

Lamps   and   chandeliers 

Leather,  and  manufactures  of 

Malt    liquors 

Marble  and  stone  manufactures 

Musical    instruments 

Oils,    mineral 

Paints,  pigments,  and  colors 

Paper,   and  manufactures  of 

Paraffin  and  wax 

Plated    ware 

Silk    manufactures 

Soap    

Spirits,    distilled 

Tobacco    manufactures 

Wood    manufactures 

Wool    manufactures 

Zinc    manufactures 

All  other  manufactured  articles 

Total    manufactures *. 

Total  agricultural  products 

Total,  all  other  articles ^.  . . 

Grand  total  domestic  exports 

Foreign    merchandise    exported 

Total  exports 


1904. 

Dollars. 

22,749,635' 

597,397 

4,347,304 

2,557,484 

499,427 

510,183' 

10,936,618 

530,216 

14,480,323 

2,281,195 

57,142,081 

22,403,713 

692,834 

6,414,636 

1,978,481 

2,441,596 

4,436,124 


8,297,723 

111,948,586 

1,365,654 

1,502,888 

83,980,615 

854,119 

1,372,001 

3,230,982 

72,487,546 

2,756,581 

7,543,728 

8,859,964 

693,618 

466,519 

2,499,933 

2,276,826 

5,042,719 

12,981,112 

1,987.938 

258,710 

17,008.912 

452,415.921 

853,643,073 

129,120,023 


1,435,179,017 
25,648,254 


1,460,827,271    | 


1905. 

Dollars. 

^20,721,741 

599,366 

4,844,100 

3,025,764 

642,501 

701,357 

10,610,437 

1,484,795 

15,859,422 

2,316,414 

86,225,291 

49,666,080 

880,827 

6,766,809 

2,252,799 

2,559,837 

4,780,817 

8,172,980 

134,727,921 

1,419,225 

1,579,125 

37,936,745 

1,012,808 

1,055,220 

3,144,787 

73,433,787 

3,126,317 

8,238,088 

7,789,160 

703,783 

620,572 

2,670,687 

2,572,152 

5,690,203 

12,560,935 

2,035,054 

1,319,619 

19,872,712 

543.620,207 

821,074,439 

127,049,959 


1,491,744,695 
26,817,025 


1,518,561,720 


SALT  INDUSTRY. 


A  bulletin  issued  by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey  states 
that  the  production  of  salt  in  the  United  States  during  1904  was 
22,030,002  barrels  (of  280  pounds),  valued  at  $6,021,222,  as  com- 
pared with  18,968,089  barrels,  valued  at  $5,286,988  in  1903.  This 
is  the  largest  production  ever  reported  except  in  1902,  but  the 
average  net  price  per  barrel  (27.332  cents)  is  lower  than  that  re- 
ported in  1903  (27.873  cents)  or  in  any  previous  year,  with  the 
exception  of  1902,  when  the  average  net  price  realized  was  only 
23.769  cents  a  barrel. 

The  most  noteworthy  feature  of  the  year  1904  was  the  increase 
of  1,193,620  barrels  in  the  production  of  rock  <alt.  This  increase 
was   due   in   large   part  to  the  .  expansion   of   the    salt   industry   of 


76  TARIFF  SHOULD  BE  REDUCED. 

Louisiana,  where  rock  salt  is  easily  and  cheaply  mined  in  the 
"mounds'^  which  occur  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State. 

The  chief  salt-producing  States  are  New  York  and  Michigan,  and 
the  combined  output  from  these  two  States  amounts  to  about  two- 
thirds  of  the  total  production  of  the  United  States.  The  five  leading 
salt-producing  States*  during  1904  were  New  York,  8,600,656  barrels; 
Michigan,  5,425,904  barrels;  Ohio,  2,455,829  barrels;  Kansas,  2,161,- 
819  barrels,  and  Louisiana,  1,095,850  barrels. 

The  actual  consumption  of  salt  in  1904  was  23,116,971  barrels,  or 
about  2.46  times  what  it  was  in  1880. 

The  imports  of  salt  in  1904  amounted  to  332,279,481  pounds. 
Great  Britain  contributed  98,943,611  pounds,  worth  $301,696;  Italy, 
106,060,288  pounds,  valued  at  $75,756;  Canada,  11,102,273  pounds, 
valued  at  $27,529;  West  Indies,  105,160,371  pounds,  worth  $89,878, 
and  other  countries  20,882,959  pounds,  valued  at  $20,371.  The 
total  value  of  all  the  imported  salt  was  thus  $515,230. 

During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1904,  the  movement  of 
exported  salt  changed  notably  from  the  course  of  trade  in  the  pre- 
vious year.  Exports  to  Japan  dropped  off  about  38  per  cent.,  prob- 
ably on  account  of  the  w^ar  with  Russia,  but  trade  with  Mexico 
more  than  doubled,  and  the  already  large  exportation  to  the  Do- 
minion of  Canada  increased  nearly  100  per  cent.  The  total  exports 
during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1904,  were  25,508,577  pounds,  valued 
at  $99,066,  whereas  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1903,  16,446,380 
pounds  were  exported  at  a  valuation  of  $70,296,  an  increase  for  1904 
of  55.1  per  cent,  in  quantity,  but  of  only  40.9  per  cent,  in  value. 


TARIFF  SHOULD  BE  REDUCED. 

TO  CURB   A   TRUST   IN    MACHINERY— A   LEADING    REPUB- 
LICAN  SPEAKS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  February  20,  1891. 
Testimony  of  Mr.  Charles  L.  Lovering,  treasurer  of  the  Merrimac  Mills. 

The  subcommission  being  in  session  in  the  rooms  of  the  Home 
Market  Club,  Mr.  Clarke,  presiding,  at  3  o'olock  p.  m.,  Mr.  Charles  L. 
Lovering,  of  Boston,  treasurer  of  the  Merrimac  and  other  mills,  was 
introduced  as  a  witness,  and,  being  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  ( By  Mr.  Clarke. )  Please  give  your  name  and  postoffice  address. — 
A.  Charles  L.  Lovering;  Taunton  is  my  voting  place  and  Boston  my 
living  place;   postoffice  box  2344,  Boston. 

Q.  Please  state  your  official  relation  to  manufacturing  companies. — 
A.  I  am  treasurer  of  several  corporations. 

Q.  Name  them  or  some  of  them. — A.  Yes;  of  the  Massachusetts 
Cotton  Mills,  of  Lowell;  the  Merrimac  Manufacturing  Company,  of 
Lowell;  the  Massachusetts,  in  Georgetown,  Ga.;  the  Merrimac  Manu- 
facturing Company,  at  Huntsville,  Ala.  The  Alabama  concern  is  not 
a  separate  corporation;  it  is  a  part  of  the  northern  mills;  it  is  a 
property  I  am  not  particularly  familiar  with. 

Q.  Any  other  mill  in  Massachusetts  except  at  Lowell? — A.  I  am 
treasurer  of  the  Whittington  Manufacturing  Company,  at  Taunton, 
but  it  so  happens  that  ray  brother  does  most  of  the  work.  He  is  the 
assistant  treasurer  and  does  whatever  has  to  be  done  there  except  when 
we  want  a  little  money  or  cotton. 

Q.  Are  all  these  mills  engaged  in  manufacturing  cotton  goods? — ^A. 
Entirely.  - 


f, 


^     OF  THE     -^  A 

.     UN!Van?^ITV  J_ 
TARIFF  SHOVED  BJB  iRmUCED,  77 

-...^,^,^,^.^^^^..^-.    _ 

A  VICTIM  OF  PROTECllOI^  WANTED  TARIFF  REVISION. 

Q.  (BY  MR.  CLARKE.)  WOULD  YOU  LIKE  TO  HAVE  THE 
TARIFF  REVISED  OR  LET  ALONE?— A.  /  WOULD  LIKE  TO 
HAVE  IT  REVISED.  I  AM  AN  EXPORTER.  I  WANT  THE 
WORLD. 

Q.  HOW  WOULD  YOU  LIKE  TO  HAVE  IT  CHANGED?— A. 
THAT  I  AM  NOT  ABLE  TO  TELL  YOU.  I  CANNOT  GO  INTO 
THAT  DISCUSSION,  BUT  I  KNOW  THERE  ARE  PLACES 
WHERE  WE  ARE  A  LITTLE  BIT  HANDICAPPED.  FOR  IN- 
STANCE, IF  I  WANT  TO  MAKE  A  REPAIR  UP  HERE  AT  THE 
MILL  AT  LOWELL  OR  IN  THE  SOUTH  I  AM  HANDICAPPED 
WITH  THE  HIGH  COST  OF  MACHINERY— TWO  AND  A  HALF 
TIMES  AS  MUCH  AS  THE  ENGLISH  PRICE.  THE  ENGLISH 
CAN  BUILD  A  MILL  AND  CAPITALIZE  IT  AT  A  THIRD  OF 
WHAT  WE  CAN  HERE.  THAT  MEANS  SOMETHING  IN  THE 
COST  OF  GOODS  IN  THE  LONG  RUN. 

Q.  YOU  WOULD  LIKE  TO  BE  ABLE  TO  GET  CHEAPER  MA- 
CHINERY?—A.  I  WOULD  LIKE  THE  MACHINERY  SOMEWHAT 
REDUCED.  THE  MACHINERY  BUILDERS  OF  THIS  COUNTRY 
ARE  SO  WELL  PROTECTED  THAT  UNDER  THE  PROTECTION 
THEY  HAVE  A  SCHEME  WHEREBY  THERE  IS  BUT  ONE  PRICE 
FOR  ANYTHING  IN  THIS  COUNTRY. 

Q.  DOES  THIS  FACT  APPLY  TO  MACHINERY  ON  WHICH 
THEY  HAVE  PATENTS,  OR  OTHERWISE  ?— A.  I  DO  NOT  REFER 
TO  THE  PATENT  PART  OF  IT.  THE  TIME  WAS,  A  FEW  YEARS 
AGO,  WHEN  THEY  COULD  GET  TWO  OR  THREE  PRICES  ON 
MACHINERY.  THEY  SAID  THEY  DID  NOT  MAKE  MONEY 
THAT  WAY.  I  AM  NOT  GOING  TO  DISPUTE  THAT,  BUT  WHEN 
YOU  GET  THE  PRICE  OF  GOODS  WAY  DOWN  BELOW,  WE  CAN- 
NOT GET  THE  MACHINERY  DOWN  TO  HELP  US  OUT  ANY. 

Q.  YOU  THINK  THE  HIGH  PRICE  OF  MACHINERY,  THEN, 
IS  LARGELY  ON  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  DUTIES  ON  IT?— A.  I 
THINK  THE  MANUFACTURERS  ARE  ENABLED  UNDER  THE 
DUTIES  TO  COMBINE.  FOR  INSTANCE,  SEVERAL  YEARS  AGO 
I  WAS  INTERESTED  IN  A  LARGE  COTTON-YARN  CONCERN; 
AND  AT  THAT  TIME  WE  COULD  BRING  ALL  OUR  CARDS 
FROM  ENGLAND  AT  A  LOW  PRICE  BECAUSE  WE  COULD 
BRING  THEM  HERE  AND  PAY  THE  DUTIES  AND  SAVE  QUITE 
A  LITTLE  AMOUNT  AND  GET  AS  GOOD  A  CARD.  A  RING- 
SPINNING  FRAME  IS  BETTER  BUILT  IN  THIS  COUNTRY  THAN 
ABROAD.  A  LARGE  PROPORTION  OF  THE  MACHINERY  ALL 
THROUGH  THE  CARDING  ROOM  IS  EQUALLY  GOOD  ABROAD, 
AND  COULD  BE  GOT  AT  A  LESS  FIGURE  AT  THAT  TIME.  BUT 
I  AM  NOT  A  COMPLAINER  IN  ANY  SENSE.  I  DO  NOT  THINK 
WE  CAN  GO  ON  IN  THIS  COUNTRY  MAKING  COTTON  GOODS 
AT  THE  RATE  WE  ARE  NOW  MAKING  THEM  WITHOUT  AN 
OUTSIDE  MARKET  AND  A  MUCH  LARGER  ONE  THAN  WE 
HAVE  TODAY. 

Q.  Do  you  think  there  is  anything  in  the  way  of  getting  that  market 
except  the  high  cost  of  machinery? — A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  would 
say  that  there  is  not.  There  are  some  countries  I  imagine  we  cannot 
get  into.  I  have  not  much  knowledge  about  it.  There  are  countries 
we  cannot  put  our  goods  into. 

Q.  Then  any  change  in  our  tariff  would  not  affect  that? — A.  It 
might.     We  might  he  able  to  get  into  other  countries. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  Have  not  they  got  the  advantage  of  the 
importation  of  machinery  without  the  payment  of  duty  ? — ^A.  Oh,  yes ; 
Germany  has. 

Q.  How  could  you  possibly  get  into  those  countries? — A.  We  do  not 
expect  to  put  any  cloth  into  Germany  or  England. 

Q.  HOW  COULD  YOU  GET  INTO  THE  COUNTRIES  THAT 
GERMANY  SUPPLIES,  EXCEPT  BY  A  REDUCTION  IN  THE 
PRICE  OF  LABOR?— A.  I  TELL  YOU  NOW  1  HONESTLY  THINK 
THAT  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  HIGH  COST  OF  LABOR  PER 


78  TARIFF  SHOULD  BE  REDUCED. 

YARD  IN  THIS  COUNTRY  A  GREAT  MANY  GOODS  ARE  MADE 
AT  AS  LOW  A  PRICE  AS  THEY  ARE  MADE  IN  GERMANY  WITH 
LOW-PRICE  LABOR. 

Q.  ON  ACCOUNT  OF  SUPERIOR  SKILL  AND  PRODUCTION? 
A.  YES;  BETTER  CLIMATE,  ETC.  BUT  I  AM  NOT  MUCH  OF  A 
TALKER  ON  THE  TARIFF,  EXCEPT  THAT  I  WANT  ALL  THE 
OUTSIDE  MARKETS  ,>^E  CAN  GET;  AND  I  AM  FREE  TO  SAY 
WE  CANNOT  GO  ON  AND  MAKE  GOODS  AS  WE  ARE  NOW 
DOING  WITHOUT  SUCH  MARKET. 

Q.  (Bx  MR.  CLARKE.)  DOES  THE  PROSPECT  OF  REVISING 
THE  TARIFF  HAVE  ANY  EFFECT  ON  BUSINESS  GENERALLY? 
A.  IT  DOES,  BUT  IT  IS  A  THING  WHICH  THE  PEOPLE  WILL 
GET  OVER  AFTER  A  WHILE.  SOMETIMES  YOU  HAVE  TO 
HAVE  A  HERCULEAN  OPERATION  TO  CURE  A  MAN— CUT  OFF 
HIS  LEG  OR  SOMETHING. 

Q.  THE  BUSINESS  DEPRESSION,  THEN,  INCIDENT  TO  A  RE- 
VISION WOULD  NOT  DETER  YOU  FROM  ADVISING  A  RE- 
VISION?—A.  NO;  IT  DOES  NOT.  I  SHOULD  NOT  BE  INTELLI- 
GENT ENOUGH  TO  MAKE  A  REVISION;  I  DO  NOT  KNOW 
ENOUGH  ABOUT  IT,  BUT  I  THINK  THAT  TO  LIVE  AND  LET 
LIVE  THE  WORLD  OVER  IS  RATHER  THE  BEST  WAY  TO 
GET  ALONG. 

Q.  YOU  THINK  THE  COTTON-GOODS  SCHEDULE  CAN  STAND 
ANY  REDUCTION  ?— A.  ALMOST  EVERYTHING  I  MAKE  CAN 
GET  ALONG  WITHOUT  ANY  TARIFF,  BECAUSE  WE  CAN  BEAT 
ENGLAND  NOW  IN  MANY  MARKETS.  THE  ENGLISH  CANNOT 
MAKE  A  DRILL  OF  THE  SAME  CAPACITY,  OF  THE  SAME 
STANDARD  AS  WE  MAKE,  AND  COMPETE  WITH  US  IN 
CHINA.  THEY  MAKE  AN  INFERIOR  DRILL  AND  THEREFORE 
GET  THERE. 

Q.  If  you  had  no  duties  would  there  be  any  danger  of  the  dumping 
of  the  surplus  stocks  in  this  country  so  as  to  demoralize  the  market? 
A.  I  do  not  think  so.  But  everybody  must  be  treated  with  the  same 
consideration,  in  my  opinion.  I  do  not  think  you  can  discriminate  in 
my  favor  against  somebody  else  making  finer  yarn. 

Q.  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  PRACTICAL  DIFFICULTY  OF 
REVISING  THE  TARIFF  YOU  WOULD  STILL  RECOMMEND  IT? 
A.  /  WOULD  RECOMMEND  A  LOWER  TARIFF.  IT  OCCURS  TO 
ME  IF  THERE  WAS  A  LOWER  RATE  OF  DUTY  PROPERLY  AP- 
PLIED TO  ALL  PRODUCTIONS  IT  MIGHT  BE  BETTER  FOR 
THE  COUNTRY.  WE  GO  TO  WORK  AND  MAKE  GOODS  AT  A 
HIGH  COST,  AND  THEN  RAISE  THE  LABOR;  AND  EVERY- 
THING THAT  LABOR  HAS  TO  BUY  IT  HAS  TO  PAY  MORE  FOR, 
SO  THAT  IT  IS  NOT  MUCH  BETTER  OFF.  I  THINK,  HOWEVER, 
LABOR  IS  AS  WELL  PAID  TODAY  AS  I  HAVE  KNOWN  IT  TO 
BE  IN  THIS  COUNTRY. 

Q.  ARE  THE  GOODS  YOU  SELL  MORE  EXPENSIVE  THAN  A 
WHILE  AGO?— A.  A  GOOD  DEAL.  IT  IS  NOT  TWO  YEARS 
SINCE  THAT  OUR  GOODS  HAVE  INCREASED  IN  COST  AT 
LOWELL  20  PER  CENT.  THE  INCREASE  IS  25  PER  CENT. 
SINCE  1888. 

Q.  What  is  that  increase  in  cost  due  to? — ^A.  To  two  10  per  cent, 
advances  in  labor,  which  makes  20  per  cent;  and  in  the  supplies 

THAT  GO  INTO  IT. 

Q.  It  THE  TARIFF  WAS  REDUCED,  WOULD  NOT  LABOR 
HAVE  TO  BE  CONTENT  WITH  A  LESS  WAGE?— A.  YES;  BUT 
IT  COULD  BUY  WHAT  IT  GETS  FOR  LESS.  THE  POINT  IS, 
THE  LOWER  YOU  CAN  OFFER  A  COMMODITY  TO  THE  WORLD 
THE  BIGGER  BUSINESS  YOU  CAN  DO.  YOU  CAN  DO  TWICE 
AS  MUCH  BUSINESS  WITH  CHINA  WITH  A  DRILL  AT  5  CENTS 
AS  AT  7  CENTS.  THE  SAME  IS  TRUE  IN  SOUTH  AMERICA; 
IT  IS  ALSO  TRUE  IN  AFRICA.  THOSE  ARE  THE  GREAT  CON- 
SUMING COUNTRIES  OF  THE  COARSE  PRODUCTS  MADE 
NORTH  AND  SOUTH  IN  THIS  COUNTRY. 

Q.  Before  this  present  war  in  China,  were  the  Chinese  manufactur- 
ing cotton  goods  to  some  extent  ? — ^A.  Yes ;  to  some  extent.  I  do  not 
know  to  how  great  an  extent,  but  their  goods  never  interfered  with 


TARIFF  SHOULD  BE  REDUCED.  79 

well-made  and  well-constructed  American  goods.  They  did  not  take 
the  same  place.  They  went  to'  parts  of  China  where  they  were  willing 
to  wear  an   inferior   article. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  why  they  cannot  produce  as  good 
goods  there  as  you  can  here  ? — ^A.  I  do  not  think  they  can.  The  morale 
of  the  country  or  of  the  labor  there  is  not  at  all  commensurate  or  to 
be  compared  with  ours.  The  very  idea  that  a  man  can  live  on  a 
cent's  or  two-thirds  of  a  cent's  worth  of  rice  does  not  to  my  mind  per- 
mit him  to  compete  with  the  man  that  lives  on  a  piece  of  beef. 

Q.  Are  you  familiar  with  cotton  goods  made  in  India? — A.  I  have 
seen  them. 

Q.  How  do  they  compare? — ^A.  I  do  not  think  they  are  as  good  as 
goods  made  in  England. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  any  of  the  Japanese  cottons? — ^A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  do  they  compare? — ^A.  Very  well  made,  indeed. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  the  cotton  manufacturing  industry  is  rapidly 
increasing  in  Japan? — A.  It  is  said  to  be  and  must  be,  because  I  be- 
lieve the  Japanese  took  something  like  100,000  bales  of  cotton  from 
this  country  last  year. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  it  costs  per  yard  to  bring  cotton  North  from 
Alabama  to  New  York? — ^A.  No;  I  cannot  tell  you.  I  was  shipping 
some  goods  to  Shanghai ;  I  believe  that  is  where  they  were  to  go.  We 
had  already  contracted  to  ship  some  by  way  of  California  direct  from 
the  Southern  mill,  making  the  New  York  allowance  of  freight  53 
points.  We  made  some  shipments  that  way,  but  it  came  out  we 
could  send  the  goods  by  way  of  New  York  and  by  way  of  the  Suez 
Canal  for  98  points,  whereas  they  went  for  115  from  the  Southern 
mill,  against  which  we  allowed  53  points. 

Q.  You  understand  Japan  is  exporting  some  cotton  yarns  and  cotton 
cloths. — A.  I  have  heard  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  wages  compare  in  Japan  with  Massachusetts? 
A.  I  do  not.    I  suppose  they  must  be  a  great  deal  less. 

(Vol.  XIV,  Industrial  Commission's  Report,  Page  528  to  533.) 


80  WAGES. 


WAGES. 


DISASTROUS    EFFECT    OF    McKINLEY    TARIFF   ON    WAGE- 
EARNERS. 

When  the  McKinley  tariff  went  into  effect  wages  were  cut  down 
in  nearly  every  industry,  on  the  products  of  which  increased 
duties  were  imposed.  Here  are  a  few  of  these  reductions  taken 
from  a  much  larger  list  published  in  the  Tariff  Reform  of  July 
30,  1892. 

OCTOBER,  1890. 

October  16.  The  Richland  and  Nelson,  miners,  at  Dayton, 
Tenn.,  to  the  number  of  1,200,  are  on  a  strike  against  a  reduction 
of  wages. 

October  16.  Miners  and  mine  laborers  are  requested  to  stay 
away  from  Etna  coal  mines,  Tennessee,  as  there  is  a  strike  there 
against  the  reduction  in  wages.  The  place  is  crowded  with  the 
unemployed. 

October  21.  The  members  of  the  Leather-Worker  Protective 
Association,  K.  of  L.,  are  on  a  strike  at  the  morocco  factory  of 
McDermott  &  Howard,  Schenck  street  and  Park  avenue,  Brooklyn, 
N.  Y.,  as  their  wages  had  been  reduced  from  $12  to  $9  per  week, 
and  more  work  was  expected  of  them  than  before  the  reduction. 

October  28.  The  silk  ribbon  weavers  at  Boss  Levy's  shop  in 
New  York  city  had  their  wages  reduced  last  week  about  10  per 
cent.  The  reduction  is  now  being  taken  off,  as  the  men  threatened 
to  strike. 

NOVEMBER,  1890. 

November  17.  Textile  workers  should  not  go  to  Lowell,  Mass., 
where  the  wages  of  the  mill  hands  have  been  reduced. 

November  18.  Spinners  in  Clark's  O.  N.  T.  mills  at  Newark, 
N.  J.,  and  Kearney,  N.  J.,  have  had  their  wages  reduced  gradually, 
and  since  the  McKinley  Bill  passed,  instead  of  the  promised 
advances,  there  has  been  a  further  reduction  of  9  per  cent.  They 
now  threaten  to  strike  and  throw  out  450. 

November  20.  Two  thousand  girls  employed  in  the  trimming 
departments  of  the  eighteen  hat  factories  connected  with  the  Fur 
Hat  Manufacturers  Association,  in  Danbury,  Conn.,  were  locked 
out  yesterday. 

November  24.  The  vest  makers  of  J.  Rosenbaum,  118  Avenue 
D,  New  York  city,  are  on  a  strike  against  a  reduction  of  wages. 

DECEMBER,  1890. 

December  4.  At  Brooklyn  over  two  thousand  cigar-makers  have 
been  idle  a  month.     They  make  from  $5  to  $10  a  week. 

December  4.  The  Safe  Harbor  Rolling  Mills  in  Lancaster,  Pa., 
has  shut  down  for  an  indefinite  period. 

December  11.  There  may  be  a  general  strike  of  the  5,000 
pottery  workers  throughout  the  United  States,  as  the  association 


WAGES.  81 


of  potteries  (the  trust)  has  announced  a  reduction  of  wages 
amounting  to  10  and  even  40  per  cent. 

December  11.  Report  from  Newark,  N.  J.,  says:  "Three 
thousand  are  out  here  because  the  Clark  mills  at  Newark  and 
Kearney  are  shut  down." 

December  18.  The  large  Pond  Machine  Tool  Company  of 
Plainfield,  N.  J.,  has  to  discharge  men  because  of  dullness  instead 
of  employing  more,  as  they  said  they  would  under  the  McKinley 
bill.     Prices  of  tools  have  increased. 

December  18.  A  general  reduction  of  wages  of  15  to  20  per 
cent,  has  been  announced  to  the  silk-ribbon  weavers  at  Adams 
mills  in  Patterson,  N.  J.,  making  the  average  wages  now  about  $7 
per  week. 

December  31.  Springfield,  111.,  miners  in  the  West  end  coal 
mines  struck  against  10  cents  per  capita  tax  by  the  company. 

JANUARY,  1891. 

January  1.  Lackawanna  Iron  and  Coal  Company,  Scranton, 
Pa.,  an  average  wage  reduction  of  20  cents  per  day. 

January  1.  Homestead  Steel  Works,  Carnegie,  Phipps  c€  Go,, 
reduction  of  loages  10  per  cent.,  hy  agreement. 

January  1.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Company's  works;  new  scale, 
making  a  wage  reduction  of  about  10  per  cent. 

January  8.  The  Frick  Coke  Company,  in  Scottdale,  Pa.,  has 
given  notice  that  they  will  shut  down  1,100  more  coke  ovens 
indefinitely  next  week,  which  will  throw  about  1,200  men  out  of 
employment.  No  cause  is  given  for  the  shut-down.  There  are 
now  4,000  idle  coke  ovens  in  that  region. 

January  8.  The  shops  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Works  in  Chicago, 
except  the  blast  furnaces,  shut  down  Wednesday  night.  One 
thousand  five  hundred  men  were  thrown  out  of  employment. 

January  15.  Four  hundred  men  were  laid  off  at  the  Scranton 
Steel  Mills  at  Scranton,  Pa.,  owing,  it  is  said,  to  the  dullness  of 
the  steel  trade. 

January  15.  The  Scottdale  Rolling  Mills  and  Pipe  Works  and 
the  Charlotte  Furnace  at  Scottdale,  Pa.,  have  shut  down  indefi- 
nitely.    One  thousand  men  thrown  out  of  employment. 

January  16.  Report  from  Massachusetts  says  the  Zylonite 
Works,  at  Adams,  now  partly  closed,  are  to  be  shut  down  entirely 
by  the  celluloid  trust,  to  which  it  belongs.  Seven  hundred  will 
be  thrown  out  of  work. 

January  21.  The  lasters  are  preparing  for  a  general  reduction 
of  wages  to  be  proposed  by  the  Shoe  Manufactory  Association  (the 
trust). 

January  22.  A  dispatch  from  Cleveland,  Ohio,  says  that  16 
blast  furnaces,  all  but  two  in  the  Mahoning  Valley,  have  been 
shut  down  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  reached  two  weeks  ago. 
Ten  thousand  men  are  thrown  out  of  employment. 

January  22.  Mechanics  and  laborers  are  warned  to  stay  away 
from  Galveston,  Texas.  The  place  is  crowded  with  men  out  of 
employment.  There  is  no  work  to  be  had  and  wages  are  down  to 
starvation  point. 


82  WAGES. 


January  22.  The  window  glass  works  at  Zanesville,  Ohio,  con- 
trolled by  the  United  Glass  Company,  have  shut  down  for  an 
indefinite  period. 

January  22.  The  employees  of  the  Cambria  Iron  Company  have 
been  notified  of  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent,  in  their  wages.  This 
will  affect  5,000  men  from  workers  to  miners. 

January  22.  A  despatch  from  Ashland,  Pa.,  says  that  orders 
have  been  issued  from  the  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  headquarters 
to  stop  work  at  the  North  Island,  Monitor,  Merriam  and  Otto 
collieries.  Several  hundred  men  will  be  thrown  out  of  employ- 
ment. 

January  29.  One  thousand  employees  of  the  Bethlehem  Iron 
Company,  in  Bethlehem,  Pa.,  have  heen  informed  of  a  reduction 
of  wages  of  10  per  cent,  after  February  1.  Depression  in  the 
trade  is  attributed  as  the  cause. 

FEBRUARY,  1891. 

February  2.  Brooks  Iron  Company,  Birsborro,  Pa.,  closed  and 
450  men  thrown  out  of  work  because  they  refused  to  accept  a 
reduction  of  7  per  cent. 

February  2.  The  Crane  Iron  Works,  Allentown,  Pa.,  a  wage 
reduction  of  10  per  cent,  took  place. 

February  6.  The  silk  ribbon  weavers  of  Steinhart's  shop  on 
Fiftieth  street,^  New  York  city,  who  went  out  on  a  strike  against 
a  reduction  of  25  per  cent.,  have  compromised  with  the  firm, 
accepting  a  reduction  of  15  per  cent. 

February  10.  Sixteen  thousand  coke  workers  strike  against  a 
reduction  of  wages  of  10  per  cent.,  demanding  on  the  other  hand 
a  12%  per  cent,  advance  and  eight  hours  instead  of  nine. 

February  12.  The  works  of  the  Ellis  &  Lessing  Steel  and  Iron 
Company,  in  Pottstown,  Pa.,  were  closed  on  Monday.  About  700 
men  were  employed. 

MARCH,  1891. 

March  5.  The  Big  Run  colliery  at  Ashland,  Pa.,  shut  down  on 
Saturday  for  an  indefinite  period.  The  suspension  will  affect  300 
men  and  boys. 

March  6.  Illinois  Steel  Company:  2,500  men  idle,  owing  to 
their  refusal  to  accept  what  appears  to  have  been  a  reduction. 

March  12.  Over  five  hundred  men  at  the  Wanskuck  Mill, 
Providence,  R.  I.,  went  out  on  a  strike  last  week  on  account  of  a 
reduction  in  wages. 

March  12.  The  Scranton  Steel  Mill  has  given  notice  to  its  750 
employees  of  a  reduction  in  wages  to  take  effect  March  15. 

March  12.     Crane  Iron  Work  laborers  are  down  to  $1  per  day. 

March  19.  The  Bear  Ridge,  Beechwood,  and  Reliance  collieries, 
at  St.  Clair,  Pa.,  operated  by  the  Reading  Company,  suspended  on 
Saturday  for  an  indefinite  period.  The  North  Franklin  will  shut 
down  soon.  This  adds  2,000  men  and  boys  to  the  number  of  the 
unemployed. 

March  19.  Work  at  the  coal  mines  of  Rondville,  Hocking  Com- 
pany, Ohio,  has  suspended  for  several  weeks.  The  miners  are  in 
a  destitute  condition  and  the  families  of  many  of  them  are  suffer- 
ing for  the  necessities  of  life. 


WAGES.  83' 


March  19.  Workingmen  are  warned  from  going  to  Blocton, 
Ala.,  more  than  300  idle  men  in  town. 

March  26.  One  hundred  and  thirty  ribbon  weavers  in  the 
Pioneer  Silk  Mill  in  Paterson,  N.  J.,  were  locked  out  by  the  firm 
last  week. 

March  26.  The  1,000  girls  and  men  employed  by  the  Armstrong 
Bros.  &  Co.,  cork  manufacturers,  went  out  on  a  strike  last  week. 

March  28.  The  Lochiel  Iron  Works  at  Harrisburg,  Pa.,  have 
shut  down. 

APRIL,  1891. 

April  1.  The  Reading  Iron  Company's  2,000  employees  were 
told  on  March  27  that  a  reduction  of  wages  would  be  made. 

April  2.  The  iron  mining  companies  of  the  Northwest  have 
reduced  wages  10  per  cent,  or  more;  many  thousand  men  are 
getting  less  pay  and  deprived  of  work. 

April  9.  Twelve  brick  manufacturing  firms  of  Trenton,  N.  J., 
have  announced  a  reduction  of  wages  of  from  15  to  20  per  cent. 
The  reason  assigned  is  a  falling  off  in  the  demand  for  brick. 

April  15.  Three  hundred  shirt  makers  are  locked  out  by  their 
bosses  in  New  York  city. 

April  24.  The  tin,  sheet  and  iron  workers  employed  at  the 
Jordan  L.  Moot  Iron  Works,  New  York  city,  are  on  a  strike  against 
a  reduction  of  wages. 

April  29.  The  skilled  laborers  of  Paterson,  N.  J.,  who  formerly 
earned  from  $25  to  $35  per  week,  complain  that  they  average  from 
$10  to  $12  at  present. 

April  30.  Mechanics,  miners  and  laborers  are  requested  to  stay 
away  from  Butte  City,  Mont.,  as  the  camp  is  crowded  with  idle 
men.  The  largest  mine  has  been  closed  down  and  more  than  1,800 
have  been  discharged. 

MAY,  1891. 

May  7.  From  the  formation  of  the  trust  in  straw  goods  the 
workers  of  that  trade  are  expecting  a  general  reduction  of  wages 
throughout  the  country  and  the  dismissal  of  many  union  men,  as 
the  managers  have  prepared  a  black  list. 

May  7.  The  cigar  makers  of  New  York  and  Baltimore,  the 
leather  finishers  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  the  morocco  workers  of  Lynn, 
Mass.,  the  weavers  of  Hopedale,  Mass.,  the  spinners  of  Lowell, 
Mass.,  the  coal  miners  of  Illinois,  the  hat  makers  of  Melburn, 
Mass.,  and  the  employees  of  the  Crane  Coal  Company  of 
Catasauqua,  Pa.,  all  had  their  wages  reduced  on  this  day.  Some 
of  these  bodies  of  men  struck. 

May  14.     The  Journal  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  says: 

"Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  manufacturers  of  sanitary 
ware  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  even  before  t-ie  passage  of  the  present  tariff 
bill,  and  while  acting  and  in  singly  and  in  competition  with  eaoh 
other,  were  making  adequate  profits  and  needed  no  further  pro- 
tection ;  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  by  the  present  tariff  bill  duties 
are  so  heavy  that  foreign  competition  is  impossible;  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  by  the  formation  of  a  trust  they  can  and  do  enact 
a  scale  of  prices  which  must  of  necessity  be  paid  for  their  wares,  as 
the  people  have  no  redress  and  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  members  of 
the  trust,  no  sooner  HAS  THE  NEW  TARIFF  LAW  BEEN  SIGNED 


84  WAGES. 


BY  THE  PRESIDENT  THAN  THE  TRUST  ARBITRARILY  IS- 
SUES ITS  DECREE  REDUCING  THE  WAGES  OF  ITS  WORK- 
MEN 26  TO  32  PER  CENT.  ON  THE  PRICE  PAID  BEFORE  FOR 
ITS  LABOR."     *     ♦     * 

May  21.  The  Howard  Match  Company,  of  Boston,  will  discharge 
100  men  and  run  on  three-quarter  time  after  June  1. 

May  28.  Nearly  all  the  large  cigar  factories  in  Key  West  are 
closed.     Four  thousand  cigar  makers  are  out  of  employment. 

May  28.  The  Pennsylvania  Saw  Company,  recently  bought  up 
by  the  saw  trust,  has  been  closed. 

JUNE,  1891. 

June  25.  Fall  River's  22,000  textile  workers  are  threatened 
with  10  per  cent,  reduction. 

June  26.  The  great  Anaconda  Mining  Company  has  shut  down 
for  months.  There  are  crowds  of  idle  miners  in  this  camp  who 
cannot  secure  employment. 

June  30.  The  Southern  Steel  Company,  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  the 
Emma  Blast  Furnace,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  Saxony  Knitting  Mills, 
Little  Falls,  N.  Y.,  Merrimac  Mills,  Lowell,  Mass.,  the  Bates  Mill, 
Lewiston,  Me.,  the  Adelaide  Silk  Mill,  Allentown,  Pa.,  all  made 
a  reduction  in  wages  on  this  day. 

JULY,  1891. 

July  9.  The  Huntington  Manufacturing  Company,  at  Hunting- 
ton, Pa.,  which  is  controlled  by  the  Iron  Car  Equipment  Company, 
of  New  York,  has  indefinitely  suspended  operations,  throwing  350 
men  out  of  employment. 

July  9.  Six  hundred  men  and  boys  in  the  Broad  Top  (Pa.)  coal 
regions  are  becoming  discontented  because  starvation  stares  them 
in  the  face  on  account  of  the  three-month  shut  down. 

July  16.  The  Cooke  Locomotive  Works,  in  Paterson,  N.  J., 
employing  1,000  men  will  close  in  a  few  days,  owing  to  dullness 
in  the  season. 

July  23.  The  proposed  reduction  in  the  pay  of  the  Monongahela 
River  miners  from  3%  to  3  cents  per  bushel  is  likely  to  cause  a 
strike  of  6,000  and  the  shutting  down  of  the  works  between 
August  1  and  15. 

July  28.  Last  week  five  boss  tailors  have  reduced  the  wages  of 
their  working  girls  who  were  locked  out  when  they  declared  that 
they  would  not  accept  a  reduction  of  wages. 

AUGUST,  1891. 

August  1.  The  wages  of  the  Lehigh  and  Wilkesbarre  Coal 
Company  miners  have  been  reduced. 

August  13.  The  American  Glucose  Company,  which  has  fac- 
tories in  Buffalo,  New  York  and  other  cities,  and  agencies  in  some 
of  the  large  cities,  has  commenced  a  general  reduction  in  salaries 
and  wages. 

August  13.  During  the  campaign  of  1888,  when  protective  tariff 
was  the  issue,  the  employees  of  the  Arcade  File  Works,  of  Sing 
Sing,  N.  Y.,  one  of  the  largest  file  manufactories  in  America,  were 


WAGES.  85 


promised  a  large  increase  of  wages  if  Harrison  should  be  elected. 
This  promise  has  not  been  kept.  Wages  were  reduced  last  Friday 
from  30  to  50  per  cent.,  according  to  the  work  done. 

August  14.  One  hundred  cloakmakers,  cutters,  finishers  and 
pressers  with  Julius  Stein  &  Co.,  507  Broadway,  Freedman  Bros., 
332  Canal  street,  and  a  few  with  Benjamin  &  Caspary,  Broome 
street.  New  York  city,  strike  because  of  low  wages  and  a  reduction 
of  percentage  to  pay  pressers. 

August  20.  Two  hundred  men  employed  by  the  Gloucester  Iron 
Works,  Gloucester,  N.  J.,  are  out  of  work  because  they  would  not 
accept  a  reduction  in  their  wages. 

SEPTEMBER,  1891. 

September  3.  Trouble  is  ahead  at  Fall  River.  The  Cotton 
Manufacturers  Association  met  September  2  and  voted  to  reduce 
wages.  The  reduction  will  take  place  October  5,  and  it  is  believed 
will  average  10  per  cent. 

September  12.  The  tobacco  workers  in  Gail  &  Ax's  and  Marburg 
Bros,  factory,  Baltimore,  Md.,  let  their  organization  go  to  pieces 
just  before  the  big  trust  got  hold  on  the  factories,  and  wages  are 
being  reduced. 

September  17.  Girls  working  in  the  cereal  works  of  Akron, 
Ohio,  after  submitting  to  a  50  per  cent,  reduction  for  two  weeks, 
struck  and  issued  an  appeal  to  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  the 
people.  The  firm  for  which  these  girls  worked  paid  good  wages 
until  they  were  taken  into  the  trust. 

September  24.  The  Gap  furnace  and  rolling  mill  at  Hollidays- 
burg.  Pa.,  which  has  been  idle  for  some  time,  were  sold  last  week 
to  a  New  York  corporation,  which  will  begin  work  at  once.  The 
works  employ  500  men. 

September  24.  The  employees  of  the  St.  Charles  Iron  Furnace 
at  Columbia,  Pa.,  have  been  notified  that  the  furnace  will  be 
blown  out  for  an  indefinite  period.  Nearly  300  men  will  be 
thrown  out  of  work. 

OCTOBER,  1891. 

October  8.  The  American  Waltham  Watch  Company  has 
announced  a  reduction  of  10  to  20  per  cent,  in  the  wages  of  900 
of  its  employees. 

October  22.  After  a  conference  between  General,  Manager 
Schwab,  of  the  Edgar  Thomson  Steel  Works  at  Braddock,  Pa., 
and  the  converting  mill  employees  a  new  scale  has  been  decided 
upon. 

October  28.  Agricultural  implements  at  Akron,  Ohio,  has 
recently  cut  down  wages. 

October  29.  The  watch  manufacturers  of  Canton,  Ohio,  have 
cut  down  the  wages  of  their  men. 

NOVEMBER,  1891. 

November  4.  John  C.  Dueber,  Canton,  Ohio,  watch  manufac- 
turer, a  firm  believer  in  the  high  tariff  to  increase  the  wages  of 
the  workingmen,  has  given  his  employees  the  benefit  of  a  20  per 
cent,  "readjustment"  in  wages  from  their  pockets  into  his  own. 


86  WAGES. 


November  6.  The  Union  men  in  San  Francisco  breweries  are 
to  be  locked  out  in  order  to  break  up  the  union  and  reduce  wages. 

November  12.  The  entire  plant  of  the  Oxford  Iron  and  Nail 
Company  at  Oxford,  N.  J.,  was  shut  down  Saturday.  One  hundred 
men  were  thrown  out. 

November  22.  Hundreds  of  workmen  are  idle  in  Paterson,  N. 
J.,  as  many  factories  have  laid  off  large  numbers  of  their  workers. 

November  28.  The  great  Pittsburg  firm  of  Jones  &  Loughlin 
has  reduced  the  wages  of  500  employees  from  $1.50  to  $1.35  per 
day.  The  men  say  that  they  are  powerless  to  resist  and  there  will 
be  no  strike. 

DECEMBER,  1891. 

December  3.  The  famous  Dickerson  mine,  on  Mine  Hill,  Hack- 
ettstown,  N.  J.,  has  suspended  operations.  Hundreds  of  families 
will  be  compelled  to  go  elsewhere  to  find  employment. 

December  17.  The  situation  in  the  bituminous  coal  regions  of 
Indiana,  in  which  some  20,000  miners  are  on  a  strike  against  wage 
reduction,  is  a  gloomy  one  for  the  diggers  in  the  bowels  of  the 
earth. 

December  17.  The  coopers  employed  at  Mathieson  &  Weichers 
sugar  refinery,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  are  on  a  strike  against  a  reduc- 
tion in  wages. 

December  24.  The  Union  Coal  Company,  Shamokin,  Pa., 
collieries  have  shut  down  work  and  thrown  600  men  out  of 
employment. 

December  31.  John  and  James  Dobson,  manufacturers  of  plush 
in  Philadelphia,  have  again  reduced  the  wages  of  their  v/eavers, 
and  they  are  now  24  per  cent,  lower  than  before  the  McKinley 
bill  was  passed. 

JANUARY,  1892. 

January  4.  The  wages  of  the  3000  employees  of  the  Elgin 
Watch  Company,  Elgin,  111.,  have  been  cut  from  15  to  60  per  cent, 
and  they  threaten  to  strike.  Several  hundred  of  them  walked 
out  yesterday.     ***** 

It  is  asserted  also  that  the  employees  of  the  Waltham  Watch 
Company  are  about  to  strike  against  a  reduction  of  wages. 

January  7.  Notices  of  an  indefinite  suspension  of  work  were 
posted  on^  Saturday  at  the  Red  Ash  Collieries  Nos.  1  and  2  at 
Wilkes-Barre,  Pa. 

January  14.  New  Year's  Day  was  not  a  very  happy  one  for  the 
families  of  the  unfortunate  miners  and  puddlers  of  Oxford  Fur- 
nace at  Oxford,  N.  J.  The  mills  of  the  Oxford  Nail  and  Foundry 
Company  have  been  shut  down  for  over  two  months.  Nobody 
knows  when  they  will  start  up,  and  when  representatives  of  the 
company  are  questioned  about  the  matter  they  refuse  to  talk.  It 
is  a  mystery  how  the  people  live.  In  many  of  the  houses  there 
has  not  been  a  coal  fire  for  weeks.  Every  day  children,  thinly 
clad,  can  be  seen  going  to  the  woods  and  returning  with  bundles 
of  broken  branches  of  trees  to  be  used  for  fuel.  ♦  *  *  •  If 
something  is  not  done  soon  families  are  likely  to  starve  to  death. 


WAGES.  87 


FEBRUARY,  1892. 

February  14.  Owing  to  the  continual  depression  in  the  iron 
trade  the  Chesapeake  Nail  Works  and  the  puddling  department 
of  the  Central  Iron  Works  shut  down  tonight,  throwing  between 
200  and  300  men  out  of  employment. 

February  20.  The  Pottsville  (Pa.)  Iron  and  Steel  Company 
^vill  reduce  the  wages  of  its  600  employees  at  Pottsville  10  per 
cent. 

February  20.  The  puddling  department  of  the  Central  Iron 
Works  at  Harrisburg,  Pa.,  shut  down  Saturday  night,  throwing 
200  men  out  of  employment.  The  men  would  not  accept  the  re- 
duction. 

February  25.  The  Columbia  Iron  and  Steel  Company  of  Pitts- 
burg, whose  plant  is  located  at  Uniontown,  Pa.,  have  made  a  de- 
mand for  a  reduction  of  25  per  cent,  in  the  wages  of  their  em- 
ployees. 

MARCH,  1892. 

March  3.  A  cut  from  10  to  20  per  cent,  was  made  among  the 
piece  workers  in  several  works  of  the  Singer  Sewing  Machine 
Works  at  Elizabeth,  N.  J.,  and  caused  great  dissatisfaction  among 
the  4000  employees. 

March  8.  Notices  were  posted  yesterday  in  three  rolling  mills 
of  Lebanon,  Pa.,  of  a  reduction  of  wages  of  12^/^  per  cent,  to  go 
into  effect  on  Monday,  March  21.  The  reduction  was  made  to 
tidt  over  the  dull  trade  and  keep  the  hands  employed. 

March  10.  A  general  reduction  in  wages  of  about  10  per  cent, 
is  being  put  in  operation  in  the  iron  furnaces  in  Birmingham,  Ala. 

March  15.  About  1000  trouser  makers  struck  work  yesterday 
because  their  employers  refused  to  sign  a  contract  with  the  union 
for  the  ensuing  year.     ************** 

March  17.  Twelve  more  iron  furnaces  at  Birmingham,  Ala., 
reduced  wages  10  per  cent,  on  Tuesday  because  of  the  low  price 
of  iron.    The  men  accept  the  inevitable. 

March  28.  The  Phoenix  Iron  Works,  of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  which 
has  been  working  on  government  contracts,  will  permanently 
close.  Over  200  workmen,  receiving  no  encouragement,  are  seek- 
ing employment  elsewhere. 

APRIL,  1892.  ^ 

April  6.     Window. glass  factories  will  shut  down  May  31.     *     * 

April  7.  Two  hundred  blacksmiths  in  the  axle  department  of 
Carnegie's  Twenty-ninth  Street  Mill  in  Pittsburg  struck  on  Satur- 
day against  a  10  per  cent,  reduction  in  wages. 

April  10.  The  Keystone  Iron  Mills  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  employ- 
ing 400  men,  shut  down  a  week  ago  today  for  an  indefinite  period. 

April  10.  Fifty  of  the  best  paid  workmen  at  the  Edgar  Thom- 
son Steel  Works  of  Andrew  Carnegie  at  Braddock,  Pa.,  were  dis- 
charged this  week. 

April  13.  The  Quaker  Oatmeal  Mills  of  Ravenna,  Ohio,  em- 
ploying 150  men,  have  shut  down  indefinitely.  This  is  part  of  the 
American  Cereal  Company,  "The  Oatmeal  Trust,"  to  limit  pro- 


88  WAGES. 


duction  and  force  prices  up  in  order  that  some  return  can  be 
earned  on  its  capital. 

April  17.  The  Reading  Iron  Company  of  Reading,  Pa.,  an- 
nounces that  a  general  reduction  will  be  made  in  the  wages  of  all 
employees  in  a  few  days,  ranging  from  5  to  10  per  cent. 

April  21.  Of  the  eleven  nail  mills  in  Massachusetts  nine  are 
idle  and  the  other  two  are  making  no  profit. 

April  25.  It  was  reported  that  600  men  had  been  thrown  out  of 
work  in  the  Lehigh  Valley  coal  region  by  the  combine  of  the 
Reading  with  several  other  railroads.     ********* 

MAY,  1892. 

May  1.  There  has  been  a  reduction  in  the  wages  of  Andrew 
Carnegie  at  his  Lower  Union  Mills  in  Pittsburg.  Seventy-five 
hi ack smiths  accepted  the  cut  of  about  20  per  cent,  without  mur- 
mur, but  seventy-five  hammermen  struck.     ******* 

May  5.  The  brickmakers  of  Philadelphia  have  been  notified 
by  their  bosses  that  their  wages  will  be  reduced  from  $3.25  to 
$2.50  per  day  next  week.    A  general  strike  will  follow. 

May  11.  Maine  has  lost  her  smelting  industry.  The  Katahdin 
Iron  Works,  which  suspended  in  1890,  has  now  removed  to  Pictou, 
Nova  Scotia. 

May  16.  The  Cigar-Makers'  Union,  No.  90,  reports  that  at 
present  about  700  cigar-makers  are  on  strike  in  New  York  city,  and 
that  400  more  will  strike  this  week,  as  the  bosses  intend  cutting 
down  wages  by  introducing  the  team-work  system. 

May  21.  One  hundred  and  fifty  girls  employed  in  the  pearl  but- 
ton factory,  Detroit,  Mich.,  are  on  a  strike  against  a  reduction  in 
their  wages.  The  factory  was  started  soon  after  the  passage  of 
the  McKinley  bill  and  was  visited  by  Governor  McKinley  at  the 
time  of  the  Michigan  Club  banquet  on  February  22.  The  girls 
who  were  making  $3.50  a  week  will  now  only  be  able  to  make  $3. 

JUNE,  1892. 

June  5.  At  a  mass  meeting  of  the  Cloth  Hat  and  Capmakers' 
Union  in  New  York  today  over  700  men,  representing  twenty-six 
out  of  thirty  shops  in  the  city,  discussed  the  grievance  of  the 
wage  reduction.  It  was  said  that  during  the  last  year  several 
reductions  in  their^  wages  at  different  times  have  made  a  total 
reduction  of  70  per  cent.,  and  that  during  the  best  four  months 
of  the  year  the  best  men  have  been  unable  to  earn  more  than  $6 
a  week.  They  will  make  an  effort  to  get  wages  back  above  starva- 
tion point. 

Pitiable  as  is  the  lot  of  these  men,  it  is  now  worse  than  that  of 
hatmakers  elsewhere  in  this  country  since  the  McKinley  bill 
came  their  way.  A  few  years  ago  the  hat  factories  of  Bloomfield, 
Watsessung  and  East  Orange,  N.  J.,  were  prosperous  and  gave 
steady  employment  to  hundreds  of  hands,  nearly  all  of  whom 
voted  for  "protection."  The  almost  prohibitive  duty  on  hatters' 
raw  materials  has  caused  the  business  to  dwindle,  until  now  no 
mill  in  Bloomfield  is  running  on  full  time  and  many  of  tbe  em- 
ploy^e^  bftye  sought  work  elsewhere. 


i 


WAGES,  89 


June  16.  The  Pittsburg  Forge  and  Iron  Company,  which  em- 
ploys 1000  men  in  its  Allegheny  Works,  has  notified  its  men  that 
on  July  1  a  general  reduction  in  wages  must  be  made  irrespective 
of  any  scale  or  rules  of  workmen  in  the  tin-plate  and  sheet-iron 
industries. 

June  19.  The  Minnesota  mine  at  Tower,  Minn.,  employing  1400, 
shut  down  last  night  by  reason  of  a  strike  against  a  reduction  of 
10  per  cent,  in  surfacemen's  wages. 

June  30.  All  the  glass  factories  at  Bellaire,  Ohio,  have  been 
permanently  shut  down,  the  manufacturers  claiming  that  they 
cannot  compete  with  those  located  in  natural  gas  towns.  About 
650  men  are  out. 

June  30.  Ten  thousand  miners  in  the  San  Juan  district  of 
Colorado  will  strike  July  1  against  a  reduction  of  wages  agreed 
upon  by  the  managers. 

JULY,  1892. 

July  1.  Rolling  mill  employees  in  Philadelphia,  numbering 
ui^ward  of  1000,  quit  work  last  evening  because  of  the  refusal  of 
their  employees  to  sign  the  scale  of  wages  that  has  been  in  force 
for  several  years.     *************** 

July  2.  The  Illinois  Steel  Company  of  Joliet,  111.,  have  given 
their  men  an  annual  dose  of  "protection."  The  rod  mill  went  out 
on  account  of  a  45  per  cent,  reduction,  which  they  refused  to  ac- 
cept. The  entire  plant  was  then  shut  down.  *  *  *  *  About 
2700  employees  are  affected. 

July  2.  The  200  heaters,  rollers  and  puddlers  employed  at  the 
Hulmbacher  Forge  and  Rolling  Mills  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  quit  work 
Thursday  night  and  yesterday  the  plant  was  temporarily  shut 
down.  The  mill  people  refused  to  sign  the  scale  of  wages  as  in 
force  last  year,  and  claim  that  to  continue  paying  at  the  same 
price  would  mean  that  no  profit  would  ever  come  out  of  their 
capital  invested. 

July  12.  The  Elm  City  Brewing  Company's  plant  at  New 
Haven,  Conn.,  now  lies  dormant,  and  A.  F.  Schneider,  of  the  com- 
pany, says  that  there  is  no  chance  of  the  concern  starting  up 
svhile  the  McKinley  bill  is  in  force.  It  is  dependent  upon  Cana- 
dian barley,  and  tlje  price  of  this  grain  is  now  50  per  cent,  higher 
than  before  the  passage  of  the  bill. 


90  TRUSTS  AWED  BY  THE  McKINLEY   TARIFF. 


TRUSTS  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY  TARIFF. 

By  retaining  the  duty  of  75  cents  a  ton  on  bituminous  it  caused 
tlie  formation  of  the  ANTHRACITE  COAL  TRUST,  which  has 
advanced  prices  on  that  most  necessary  article — coal. 

It  (McKinley  Tariff)  retained  the  already  almost  prohibitive 
rate  of  6-10  cents  per  pound  on  barbed  wire  and  the  BARBED 
WIRE  TRUST  was  formed  January  1,  1891. 

The  BOOT  AND  SHOE  COMBINE  was  materially  strengthened 
by  the  protective  duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  boots  and  shoes. 

It  raised  the  tariff  on  brooms  to  40  per  cent,  and  the  BROOM 
TRUST  formed  in  November,  1891,  has  since  that  time  raised 
prices  75  cents  per  dozen. 

"By  the  outrageous  increase  of  the  duty  on  pearl  buttons  to 
nearly  400  per  cent,  the  BUTTON  TRUST  has  been  encouraged  to 
plunder  the  American  people."  (The  Tariff  Reform.) 

The  tariff  on  cartridges  was  increased  to  45  per  cent,  and  the 
CARTRIDGE  TRUST  has,  since  November,  1890,  sold  at  prices 
nearly  100  per  cent,  higher  than  those  of  1888,  'but  they  have  not 
ceased  to  sell  to  foreigners  about  40  per  cent,  cheaper  than  to 
Americans. 

The  CELLULOID  TRUST  is  protected  by  a  20  per  cent,  duty  and 
on  January  16,  1891,  threw  seven  hundred  men  out  of  employment 
by  shutting  down  one  of  its  works. 

THE  COPPER  INGOT  and  COPPER  SHEET  TRUST  are  both 
protected  by  the  McKinley  Tariff  and  have  proved  very  disastrous 
to  the  copper  industries  of  the  country. 

As  there  has  never  been  any  imports  of  cottonseed  oil,  there 
was  no  excuse  for  the  retention  in  the  McKinley  bill  of  any  duty, 
but  its  effect  is  to  protect  the  COTTONSEED  OIL  TRUST  against 
the  reimportation  of  its  own  products,  if  it  chooses  to  sell  to 
foreigners  at  a  price  much  lower  than  to  Americans. 

The  COTTON  THREAD  TRUST  took  prompt  advantage  of  the 
McKinley  act. 

After  the  increased  duty  on  terne  plates  was  granted  by  the 
McKinley  act,  two  associations  of  manufacturers  united  to  form 
the  GALVANIZED  IRON  AND  STEEL  TRU^T,  and  prices  have 
risen. 

The  LEATHER  TRUST  was  formed  under  this  tariff. 

THE  HARROW  as  well  as  THE  HARVESTER  TRUST  both  sell 
to  foreigners  cheaper  than  to  Americans. 

The  prohibitive  duties  upon  white  lead  was  retained  in  the 
interest  of  the  LEAD  TRUST,  which  has  made  its  prices  still 
higher,  while  it  exports  its  surplus  to  Canada  and  other  countries, 
selling  there  at  a  heavy  discount. 

The  duty  on  matches  resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  MATCH 
TRUST,  which  has  closed  down  factories,  thrown  hundreds  of 
people  out  of  employment  and  advanced  the  price  of  matches  50 
per  cent,  per  gross. 

A  duty  of  15  per  cent,  was  suflScient  to  build  up  the  great  PAPER 
BAG  TRUST,  yet  Mr.  McKinley  generously  increased  the  duty  to 
25  per  cent 


I 


TRU8T8  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY   TARIFF.  91 


The  PLATE  GLASS  TRUS.T  was  protected  by  a  duty  of  100 
per  cent.,  and  although  the  cost  of  manufacture  steadily  declined, 
the  American  consumer  paid  the  TRUST  ten  million  dollars  in 
one  year  for  plate  glass  more  than  it  could  be  purchased  abroad. 

The  POCKET  CUTLERY  TRUST,  THE  POWDER  TRUST,  and 
the  WOOD  PULP  TRUST  were  all  helped  by  the  McKinley  TarilT. 

The  SALT  TRUST  was  born,  and  the  price  of  salt  advanced  all 
along  the  line,  just  as  soon  as  the  McKinley  act  kept  the  duty  on 
salt. 

The  SASH,  DOOR  AND  BLIND  TRUST  was  protected  by  a 
duty  of  35  per  cent. 

The  SCHOOL  BOOK  TRUST  robs  every  parent  who  sends  a 
child  to  school  and  was  "protected"  by  a  duty  of  25  per  cent. 

The  SMELTERS  TRUST  was  formed  immediately  after  the 
election  of  Harrison.  The  McKinley  act  insured  its  life  by  the 
retention  in  the  tariff  of  the  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  in  pigs 
and  bars. 

The  SOAP  TRUST  was  helped  along  by  a  duty  -of  from  20  to  40 
per  cent. 

The  great  STARCH  AND  DEXTRINE  TRUST  had  its  perman- 
ency assured  by  the  McKinley  tariff,  and  after  this  advanced  its 
price  of  lump  starch  $20  per  ton. 

The  duty  on  steel  rails  was  prohibitory,  thereby  aiding  the 
STEEL  RAIL  TRUST. 

The  McKinley  act  abolished  the  duty  on  raw  sugar,  thus  giving 
the  SUGAR  TRUST  free  raw  materials,  and  then  left  it  protection 
of  half  cent  per  pound  on  refined  sugar. 

The  TINNED  PLATE  TRUST  also  obtained  "protection"  under 
this  act. 

The  TRUNK  TRUST  was  an  outgrowth  of  the  McKinley  Tariff. 

Duties  on  umbrellas  were  increased  55  per  cent,  and  the 
UMBRELLA  TRUST  was  formed  very  shortly  thereafter. 

The  tariff  of  25  per  cent,  on  watches  was  retained  and  the 
WATCH  TRUST  continues  to  charge  Americans  25  per  cent,  more 
than  foreigners. 

The  duties  on  window  glass,  averaging  about  100  per  cent, 
were  retained,  and  enabled  the  WINDOW  GLASS  TRUST  to  live 
and  prosper. 

It  was  not  three  months  after  the  McKinley  bill  was  passed 
before  the  WIRE  TRUST  had  been  perfected,  the  output  decreased, 
numbers  of  employees  discharged,  the  wages  of  others  reduced 
20  per  cent,  and  the  price  of  wire  increased. 

The  Tariff  increased  the  duty  on  screws  likely  to  be  imported, 
and  the  WOOD  SCREW  TRUST  makes  enormous  profits,  while 
selling  over  30  per  cent,  cheaper  to  foreigners. 

The  YELLOW  PINE  TRUST  was  formed  after  the  McKinley 
act  went  into  effect  and  advanced  prices. 

The  McKinley  Act  made  possible  the  GLUCOSE  TRUST. 

SENATOR  HALE  ON  THE  McKINLEY  TARIFF. 

Senator  Hale,  January  28,  1892,  said: 

Senator  Hale:  "I  do  not  hesitate,  Mr.  President,  in  stating  here 
and  now,  as  the  result  of  my  observation,  that  I  firmly  believe  that 
section  3  of  the  McKinley  bill,  which  contains  the  reciprocity  feature, 


92  TRUSTS  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY   TARIFF. 

is  the  part  of  the  measure  which  has  :&oated  the  whole  act,  and  which 
kept  it  from  being  swamped  by  the  storm  which,  without  reason, 
broke  upon  it  from  the  day  of  its  passage.  The  great  merits  of  other 
parts  of  the  McKinley  bill  might  have  sunk  under  a  sea  of  obloquy 
and  would  never  have  been  seen  and  appreciated  if  the  reciprocity 
clause  had  not  kept  the  whole  structure  from  going  down."  (Record 
Vol.  23;  p.  621,  52d  Con.,  1st  Sess.) 

McKINLEY  TARIFF  A   FAILURE— PRODUCER  OF   DEFICITS 
AND  PANICS. 

The  Harrison  administration  began  March  4,  1889 — the  Mc- 
Kinley Tariff  was  in  operation  from  October  6,  1890,  to  August  29, 
1894 — 47  months.  The  Cleveland  administration  operated  eigh- 
teen months  under  this  tariff — from  March  4,  1893,  to  the  enact- 
ment of  the  Wilson  Tariff  Act,  August  28,  1894.  The  McKinley 
Tariff  produced  a  deficit  in  the  second  month  of  its  existence 
(November,  1890) ;  11  others  occurred  before  Cleveland  was  nom- 
inated (June,  1892) ;  that  is,  twelve  deficits  all  told  out  of  a  total 
of  twenty  months.  Moreover,  it  produced  six  deficits  in  6  months 
thereafter  and  before  Cleveland  was  inaugurated  (March,  1893), 
and  13  monthly  deficits  after  his  inauguration,  causing  a  total 
deficit  of  over  $80,000,000  for  the  47  months.  There  was  a  deficit 
of  over  $9,000,000  before  Cleveland's  nomination^and  $4,000,000  and 
over  between  his  nomination  and  his  inauguration — all  under  the 
McKinley  Tariff. 

The  incontrovertibility  of  these  statements  is  shown  by  a  table 
prepared  by  and  printed  in  a  speech  of  Hon.  John  W.  Gaines,  and 
published  in  the  Congressional  Record  June  20,  1906,  pp  9044- 
9045,  and  given  herewith: 

Operation  of  the  Treasury  Department  under  the  McKinley  tariff  act  of 
October  6,  1890,  repealed  hy  the  Wilson  tariff  act  of  August  28,  1894, 
covering  a  period  of  forty-seven  months. 

BEFORE  CLEVELAND'S   NOMINATION. 

Month.                                   Receipts.  Expenditures. 

1  October.   1890  a $40,21.5,894.29  $38,036,664.24 

2  November,     1890 28,986,124.71  642,570.022.40 

3  December,    1890 31,370,039.87  21.888,550.00 

4  January,    1891 37,055,973.25  2.3,981.309.07 

5  February,   1891 29,611,318.02  631,725,009.86 

6  March,     1891 29,418,330.46  631,502,941.60 

7  April,     1891 26,045,831.64  25,331,194.06 

8  May,     1891 27,417,425.94  629.772,085.15 

9  June,    1891 31,721,749.51  635,902,971.96 

10  July,     1891 34,300.344.68  639.719,651.13 

11  August,     1891 28,884,851.10  20,738,020.95 

12  September,     1891 28.001,247.25  23,934,801.19 

13  October,     1891 28,500.552.21  631,872,268.02 

14  November,     1891 26,917,162.72  627,911,002.30 

15  December,     1891 27.932.085.73  631.821,889.67 

16  Jinuary,     1892 30..542,728.60  635,663,522.60 

17  February,     1892 80,755,904.57  27,482,059.13 

18  March,     1892 30.048,806.33  28.989,589.79 

19  April,     1 892 27,388,354.04  631,098,076.97 

20  May,     1892 28,498,798.45  632,755,478.39 

Total $603,674,423.37  $612,697,108.48 

Deficit  for  20  months,  $9,022,685.11. 


TRUSTS  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY   TARIFF.  93 

AFTER  CLEVELAND'S  NOMINATION. 

Month.                                       Receipts.  Expenditures. 

21  June,    1892c $31,219,117.98  $28,940,634.25 

22  July,     1892 34,571,356.25  637,249,407.04 

■23     August,     1892 34,032,928.53  32,080,779.53 

24  September,     1892 31,841,278.66  28,917,798.74 

25  October,     1892 31,836,138.21  631,881,250.18 

26  November,     1892d 28,794,645.38  630,748,882.78 

27  December,    1892 33,212,911.10  634,277,123.58 

28  January,     1893 35,209,972.31  639,253,381.68 

29  February,     1893 30,009,892.23  631,677,454.00 

Total $290,728,240.65  $295,026,711.78 

Deficit  for  9  months,  $4,298,471.13. 

AFTER  CLEVELAND'S  INAUGURATION. 

Month.                                       Receipts.  Expenditures. 

30  March,  1893e $34,437,844.99  $32,372,997.73 

31  April,  1893 28,599,942.29  633,771.365.73 

32  May,  1893 30,971,497.64  30,872,502.79 

33  June,  1893 30,983.921.85  .  29,266,451.30 

34  July,  1893 30,905,776.19  639,675,888.60 

35  August.  1893 23,890,885.30  633,305,228.48 

36  September,  1893 24,582,756.10  625,478,010.17 

37  October,  1893 24,553,394.97   •   629,588,792.34 

38  November,  1893 23,979,400.81  631,302,026.41 

39  December,  1893 22,312,027.00  630.058,260.51 

40  January,  1894 24,082,738.97  631,309,669.59 

41  February.  1894 22,269,299.46  626,725,373.84 

42  March,  1894 24,842.797.79  631,1-37,560.24 

48  April,  1894 22,692.364.26  632,072.836.42 

44  May,  1894 23.066,994.32  629,779,140.92 

45  June,  1894 26,485.925.72  25.557,021.23 

46  July,  1894 34,809,339.75  636,648,582.53 

47  August,  1894f 40,417,605.81  31,656,636.85 

Total $1,388,287,167.24   $1,468,302,165.94 

1,388,287,167.24 

Total  deficit  for  47  months $80,014,998.70 

a   McKinlev   Act   took   effect   October   6,    1890. 

6  Deficit. 

c  Clevehnd  nominated  June  21,  1892. 

d  Cleveland  elected. 

e  Cleveland    inaugurated. 

f  Wilson  tariff  took  effect  August  28,  1894. 

This  table  is  based  upon  the  ^'Comparative  Statement  of  Ex- 
renditures  and  Receipts  of  the  United  States,"  which  (see  appen- 
dices, p.  252)  issued  monthly  by  the  Treasury  Department,  and  is 
printed  in  the  Record  of  June  20,  1906,  pp.  9047  to  9051,  in  so  far 
as  it  covers  the  operations  of  the  Treasury  under  the  McKinley 
Tariff,  from  and  including  October,  1890,  down  to  and  including 
February,  1893 — four  days  before  the  second  inauguration  of  Mr. 
Cleveland. 

In  the  face  of  these  official  figures,  the  Republicans  charge 

That  the  first  deficit  under  the  McKinlev  Tariff  was  November, 
1892  (^^^^EN  in  fact  it  first  occurred  NOVEMBER.  1890, 
as  shown  above)  ;  that  this  deficit  and  all  others  under  the  McKinley 
Tariff  were  caused  by  the  election  of  Mr.  Cleveland  and  a  Demo- 
cratic Congress  in  November,  1892;  and  that  their  election  caused 
the  panic  of  1893.  when,  in  truth,  the  Treasury  wns  VIRTUALLY 
BANKRITPT  LONG  BEFORE  THE  NOMINATION,  ELECTION 
OR  INAUGURATION  March,  1893,  of  Mr.  Cleveland. 

SECRETARY  FOSTER  BEFORE  HOUSE  COMMITTEE, 
FEBRUARY  25,  1893. 

Mr.  Foster  testified  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  on 
the  condition  of  the  Treasury.  His  testimony  is  fully  reported  in 
House  Report  No.  2621,  Fifty-secOnd  Congress,  2nd  Session.    He 


94  TRUSTS  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY  TARIFF. 

then  acknowledged  that  he  had  changed  his  predecessor's  system 
of  bookkeeping  by  including  as  "available"  cash  subsidiary  coin 
(then  about  $9,000,000),  and  Federal  Deposits  in  National  Banks 
(then  about  $10,000,000),  which  two  items  "my  predecessors," 
said  he,  has  treated  as  "unavailable"  cash.    Continuing,  he  said: 

"If  I  eliminated  those  items  7iow  (February  25th,  1893),  there 
would  be  a  showing  of  deficit." 

He  further  said  that  unlike  his  "predecessors"  he  had  "little 
money  and  wanted  to  show  that  it  was  as  large  as  possible," 
hence  "I  adopted"  this  new  system.  He  further  confessed  that 
he  had  "held  up"  the  payment  of  "requisitions"  on  the  Treasury 
for  "a  day  or  two  until  we  got  in  better  shape,"  *  *  *  "when 
someone  would  say  that  the  Treasury  was  bankrupt  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing." 

"I  merely  make  this  explanation  so  you  may  know  what  the  situa- 
tion has  been."     *     *     * 

"I  should  say  that  the  next  fiscal  year  would  show  a  deficit." 
"I  think  an  annual  increase  of  $50,000,000  would  make  the  Treasury 
easy,  and  if  I  was  going  to  manage  it  I  would  want  to  have  it  that 
way." 

He  urged  raising  thai  Gold  Reserve  from  $100,000,000  to  $125,- 
000,000  because  "by  the  act  of  July  14,  1890  (Sherman  Silver 
Law),  you  have  created  an  additional  liability  upon  the  gold  in 
the  Treasury  of  $130,000,000." 

"Now,  I  want  to  state  to  you  these  estimates  are  based  upon  con- 
ditions existing  prior  to  the  late  election." 

Mr.  Foster  had  made  these  same  recommendations  in  his  an- 
nual report  three  months  before — December  5,  1892 — and  then 
also  said: 

"The  estimated  receipts  are  based  upon  conditions  prevailing  prior 
to  the  late  election." 

"The  late  election"  to  which  he  alludes  was  the  election  of  Mr. 
Cleveland  and  a  Democratic  Congress,  November,  1892. 

Here  we  have  Mr.  Foster  confessing  that  a  deficit  would  ap- 
pear— "now" — February  25,  1893 — if  he  did  not  count  as  "avail- 
able" cash  the  hitherto  "unavailable"  cash,  that  is,  SUBSIDIARY 
COIN  (limited  tender)  AND  FEDERAL  DEPOSITS  IN  NA- 
TIONAL BANKS,  the  two  items  amounting  then,  as  he  said,  to 
about  $19,000,000.  Furthermore,  he  confessed  that  "the  next 
fiscal  year  would  show  a  deficit.'' 

Moreover,  the  Committee  reported  that  there  would  be  a  deficit: 

"*  *  *  at  the  end  of  the  ensuing  fiscal  year  *  *  *  to  from 
$30,000,000  to  $40,000,000.  In  these  calculations  NO  ACCOUNT 
WHATEVER  has  been  taken  of  the  requirements  of  the  Sinking 
Fund." 

"Secretary  Foster  stated  in  his  opinion  that  the  annual  receipts 
of  the  government  should  AT  ONCE  be  increased  and  that  his  opinion 
there  would  be  a  deficit  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  1894;  that  the 
annual  revenue  should  be  increased  $50,000,000     *     *     *     to  meet 


TRUSTS  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY   TARIFF.  95 

the  conditions  to  which  reference  has  been  made  in  his  report,  and 
also  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  Gold  Reserve  to  the  extent 
of  $25,000,000."    (H.  R.  Report,  52d  Congress,  Second  Session,  2651.) 

We  quote  the  following  testimony  of  Secretary  Foster  before 
the  House  Committee  February  25,  1893. 

Secretary  Foster — "Now,  I  want  to  say  to  you  these  estimates  are 
based  upon  conditions  existing  prior  to  the  late  election." 

Mr.  Turner — "Taking  4nto  consideration  all  these  conditions  which 
you  anticipate,  what,  in  your  judgment,  would  be  a  fair  conjecture 
of  the  condition  of  the  Treasury  at  the  end  of  the  next  fiscal  year  ?" 

Secretary  Foster — ^*'I  should  say  the  next  fiscal  yeas  would 
snow  a  deficit." 

Mr.  Turner — "Can  you  give  an  approximate  estimate,  according  to 
all  the  data  accessible  to  you  ?" 

Secretary  Foster — "I  will  only  say  this,  that  if  I  was  to  have  the 
management  of  the  Treasury,  1  should  insist  upon  an  increase  of 
bevenue  to  the  extent  of  $50,000,000." 

Mr.  Turner — "In  order  to  meet  those  conditions  which  you  antici- 
pate f 

Secretary  Foster — "Not  only  those  conditions,  but  the  gold  condi- 
tions as  well." 

Mr.  Wilson — "Did  I  understand  you  to  express  a  general  opinion  a 
while  ago  that,  in  addition  to  the  present  sources  of  revenue,  that 
the  revenues  of  the  Treasury  Department  ought  to  be  advanced 
$50,000,000  more  a  year  ?" 

Secretary  Foster — "Yes,  sir." 

Mr.  McMillin — ^"Would  you  make  that  for  one  year  or  a  permanent 
increase  of  revenue?" 

Secretary  Foster — "As  things  are  going  now,  a  permanent  revenue, 
for  two  reasons.  I  would  increase  the  gold  reserve  at  least  $25,000,000 
if  I  had  the  money  to  do  it  with." 

Mr.  Turner — "But  your  answer  just  now  seemed  to  contemplate  an 
annual  increase." 

Secretary  Foster-^'I  think  an  annual  increase  of  $50,000,000  would 
make  the  Treasury  easy,  and  if  I  were  going  to  manage  it  I  would 
want  to  have  it."  (H.  R.  Report,  2651,  52d  Congress,  2d  filed  March 
3,  1893.) 

REQUISITIONS  HELD  UP   BY  FOSTER. 

Mr.  Foster — "Possibly,  sometimes,  when  five  or  six  or  seven  mil- 
lions of  requisitions  would  come  in  in  a  day,  for  which  he  would  have 
to  pay  gold  if  all  were  paid  in  a  day,  I  probably  have  suggested  to 
Mr.  MacLennan  that  he  had  better  wait  a  day  or  two  until  we  got 
in  a  better  shape,  because  I  did  not  want  to  pay  out  gold  for  current 
liabilities." 

"PADDLED  ALONG,"   PAYING   UNCLE  SAM'S   DEBTS. 

Mr.  Foster — "I  merely  make  this  explanation  so  j^ou  may  know 
what  the  situation  has  been.  This  has  not  been  for  the  want  of 
money.  Once  in  a  while,  when  large  requisitions  come  in  and  pile 
up  together,  I  do  not  want  to  pay  them,  because  I  would  have  to  pay 
them  in  gold,  and  so  we  would  paddle  along  for  a  day  or  two,  when 
some  one  would  say  the  Treasury  was  bankrupt  and  all  that  sort  (f 
thing." 

Mr.  McMillin — "Certain  funds  which  were  heretofore  held  by  the 
Treasury,  and  not  treated  as  available  balances  in  the  Treasury, 
have  been  treated  in  more  recent  reports  as  available  balances  in 
the  Treasury,  and  I  want  to  find  out  what  the  aggregate  of  that  is." 

Mr.  Miller — "The  $54,000,000  for  redemption  of  national  bank  notes 
is  the  only  fund  that  has  gone  into  the  cash." 


96  TRUSTS  AIDED  BY  THE  McKINLEY  TARIFF. 

Mr.  Turner — "Do  you,  in  making  that  request  want  it  to  show 
how  the  fund  for  redeeming  national  bank  notes  was  carried  in  the 
former  statement  ?" 

Mr.  McMillin— "Yes,  sir." 

Mr.  Miller — *'That  was  a  separate  account.  *  *  *  That  was 
not  in  the  cash." 

NEW  SYSTEM  OF  COUNTING  THE  CASH  "I  ADOPTED," 
SAID  MR.  FOSTER. 

Mr.  Wilson — "Then  in  regard  to  the  subsidiary  coin,  there  has  been 
some  change  made." 

Secretary  Foster — "We  count  that  as  money.  It  has  gotten  down 
to  $y ,000,000,  or  will  when  the  appropriation  for  the  Columbian  Ex- 
position is  made." 

Mr.  McMillin — "I  would  like  to  have  that  included  also." 

Secretary  Foster — "We  will  show  you  how  it  is  carried  on  previous 
statements,  and  how  it  is  on  the  one  I  adopted." 

Mr.  Wilson — "What  items  in  the  Treasury  are  how  covered  in  as 
available  cash  which  were  hitherto  set  apart  as  not  under  that 
heaaing  ?" 

Secretary  Foster — "All  right.  Under  Mr.  Manning  the  bank  de- 
posits were  not  considered  as  money  in  the  Treasury.  Subsidiary 
coin  was  not,  but  if  I  eliminated  those  items  now  there  would  be  a 
showing  of  deficit." 

Mr.  Payne — "I  understand  you  are  keeping  books  according  to  law, 
and  that  this  statement  they  use  to  make  was  not  according  to  law." 

Secretary  Foster — "I  do  not  want  to  say  that;  I  do  no  want  to  say 
that  in  regard  to  my  predecessors." 

Mr.  Wilson — "As  I  understand,  Mr.  Payne,  according  to  law  means 
when  I  get  pretty  hard  pressed  I  can  take  trust  funds  and  pass  them 
to  my  account,  and  take  some  of  my  obligations  I  have  got  on  hand 
for  sale  and  count  them  as  sold." 

Secretary  Foster — "It  is  not  that;  but  the  changes  in  the  keeping 
of  the  statement  are  simply  this :  There  are  two  items,  one  of  money  in 
banks  and  the  other  subsidiary  coin,  which  were  eliminated  from  the 
cash,  and  were  not  called  cash.  Now,  I  got  to  a  point  where  if  I  did 
not  include  them  in  my  cash  my  statement  would  show  a  deficit.  I 
thought  they  were  cash.  I  can  take  every  dollar  out  of  these  banks 
in  a  minute,  and  I  believe  I  have  reduced  the  deposit  to  about 
$10,000,000." 


THE  REAL  SiaMFlCANCE  OF  FOS^TEWS  PLAN.        97 


THE  REAL  SIGNIFICAI\rCE  OF  FOSTER'S  PLAN. 

SHERMAN    SILVER    LAW    CONDEMNED    BY    MR.    FOSTER. 

The  real  significance  of  these  statements  is  what  the  Secretary  at  the 
time  being  wants  to  show.  My  predecessors  had  a  great  deal  of 
money,  and  they  wanted  to  show  it  was  as  small  as  possible.  I  had 
little  money  and  wanted  to  show  it  was  as  large  as  possible,  and  I  did 
just  exactly  what  Brother  Springer  would  have  done  if  you  had  been 
in  my  place.     There  was  no  juggling  of  figures  at  all. 

Mr.  Payne — "iTou  went  to  a  point  where  if  you  continued  the  old 
statement  it  would  have  showed  a  deficit,  but  you  still  nad  plenty  of 
money  in  the  Treasury  for  all  needs?" 

Secretary  Foster — "Certainly." 

Mr.  Payne — "The  Treasury  was  easy  at  that  time?" 

Secretary  Foster — "Yes.  The  difficulty  with  the  Treasury  has  not 
been  any  lack  of  money.  It  ought  to  have  more  money,  but  by  the  act 
of  July  14,  1890  (Sherman  silver  act),  you  have  created  an  additional 
liability  upon  the  gold  in  the  Treasury  of  $130,000,000.  That  $100,- 
000,000  was  set  apart  as  a  redemption  fund  for  $346,000,000,  and  it 
is  now  nearly  $500,000,000." 

Mr.  McMillin — "Four  hundred  and  seventy-six  million  dollars,  I  be- 
lieve." 

Mckinley   tariff  and   sherman    laws    failed   to 

MEET    the    "NATURAL"    DEMANDS    OF    THE    PEOPLE. 
"SHRINKAGE  OF  THE   BALANCE  OF  TRADE." 

Secretary  Foster — "Now,  there  is  a  demand  for  this  gold  from 
abroad,  and  the  truth  is  we  owe  the  money  and  it  is  natural.  My  best 
information  is  that  our  securities  are  not  coming  back  here;  we  are 
shipping  securities  abroad,  but  when  you  take  into  account  the  shrink- 
age of  the  balance  of  trade  as  shown  upon  the  customhouse  books  com- 
pared with  former  years,  and  then  deduct  from  that  the  balance  of 
what  our  people  spend  abroad,  say  $120,000,000;  $30,000,000  balance 
freight;  $25,000,000,  undervaluations  (and  I  think  it  is  probable  we 
are  cheated  that  much)  ;  $12,000,000  servant-girl  funds  sent  abroad 
(the  balance  on  postal  money  orders  is  $12,000,000  against  us)  ;  the 
Chinese  send  what  money  they  have  back  to  China ;  most  of  the  money 
of  the  Italians  goes  back;  75,000  American  citizens  go  abroad  every 
year  in  the  steerage  who  spend  more  or  less  money;  all  of  these  ele- 
ments must  be  considered  in  determining  the  balance  of  trade.  When 
you  take  all  these  elements  into  account  you  will  find  we  owe  money 
abroad." 

"Seeing  these  things,  the  Secretary  felt  that  we  should  keep  all  the 
money  we  could  in  gold.  About  $25,000,000  was  the  limit  he  could  pay 
for.  He  had  no  trouble  to  get  gold  if  he  had  the  money  to  get  it  with." 

HELD  UP  PAYMENT  OF  REQUISITIONS  ON  TREASURY. 

"Possibly,  sometimes,  when  five  or  six  or  seven  millions  of  requisi- 
tions would  come  in  in  a  day,  for  which  he  would  have  to  pay  gold  if 
all  were  paid  in  a  day,  I  probably  have  suggested  to  Mr.  MacLennan 
that  he  had  better  wait  a  day  or  two  until  we  got  in  a  better  shape, 
because  I  did  not  want  to  pay  out  gold  for  current  liabilities. 

"I  knew  just  as  well  as  I  was  living  that  this  thing  was  going  to 
come,  ana  I  wanted  to  be  as  strong  as  I  possibly  could." 

"I    MADE   AS   GOOD   A   STATEMENT    IN    MY    REPORT   AS    I 

COULD." 

"So  you  see  in  my  report  /  made  as  good  a  statement  as  I  could  of 
our  condition,  and  asked  you  to  give  the  Treasury  more  money,  so  this 
gold  reserve  might  be  increased.    Now,  since.  $21,000,000  of  this  gold 


98         THE  REAL  SIGNIFICANCE  Or  FOS^TER'S  PLAN. 

has  gone  and  I  have  but  $4,000,000  left,  I  can  pay  any  requisitions 
which  come  in  promptly,  because  I  have  currency  in  the  place  of 
gold." 

WHAT   THE    SITUATION    HAS    BEEN,    "PADDLED   ALONG." 

"I  merely  make  this  explanation  so  you  may  know  what  the  situation 
has  been.  This  has  not  been  for  the  want  of  money.  Once  in  a  while, 
when  large  requisitions  come  in  and  pile  up  together,  I  do  not  want  to 
pay  them,  because  I  would  have  to  pay  them  in  gold,  and  so  we  would 
paddle  along  for  a  day  or  two,  when  some  one  would  say  the  Treasury' 
was  bankrupt  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  Now,  I  commenced  with 
$25,000,000  in  gold  in  the  Treasury  when  gold  exports  commenced  in 
December;  $35,000,000  have  gone  out  of  the  country  and  we  have 
$4,000,000  left. 

Naw,  more  gold  is  going,  I  have  no  doubt.  If  the  Secretary  could 
have  had  $50,000,000  more  money  on  the  1st  of  December  he  could 
have  increased  the  gold  to  $150,000,000  and  kept  his  reserve  at  about 
$125,000,000,  but  not  having  the  money,  he  could  not  do  it." 

The  Minority  Report,  signed  by  the  great  leaders  of  the  House, 
Mr.  Payne  (New  York),  Mr.  Dalzell,  Mr.  Thomas  D.  Reed,  Mr. 
Hopkins,  Mr.  Burrows,  in  part,  said: 

REPUBLICAN     MINORITY    CONFESS. 

"On  the  basis  of  the  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it 
would  seem  that  the  amount  of  the  surplus  or  deficiency  would  be 
very  small." 

"Small"— but  it  would  be— and  was  over  $69,803,260. 
The  Report  of  the  Majority,  upon  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Foster 
and  several  others,  was,  in  part,  as  follows: 

Majority  Report. 
DEFICIT  of  $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000. 

Under  the  most  careful  estimates  that  can  now  be  made  it  is  ap- 
parent that  at  the  end  of  the  ensuing  fiscal  year  there  will  be  a  deficit 
amounting  to  from  $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000.  In  these  calculations 
no  account  whatever  has  been  taken  of  the  requirements  of  the  sinking 
fund. 

In  the  statement  above  referred  to — No.  6 — it  will  be  seen  that  the 
requirements  of  the  sinking  fund  were  not  met  during  the  past  fiscal 
year  and  no  effort  has  been  made  to  meet  such  requirements  during  the 
current  fiscal  year,  nor  can  any  of  its  requirements  be  observed  during 
the  ensuing  fiscal  year  unless  there  is  a  large  increase  in  the  revenues 
of  the  Government. 

According  to  Secretary  Foster's  statement,  above  referred  to,  the 
balance  due  the  sinking  fund  June  30,  1892,  was  $11,307,825.36  and 
the  requirements  of  the  sinking  fund  for  the  fiscal  year  1893  were 
estimated  at  $48,693,000,  showing  that  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year 
1893  there  will  be  due  the  sinking  fund  $60,000,000.  The  statement 
further  shows  that  at  the  end  of  the  next  fiscal  year  there  will  be  due 
the  sinking  fund  a  little  over  $100,000,000. 

It  appears  from  these  statements  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
has  charged  against  the  sinking  fund  the  amount  of  $16,000,000  paid 
for  the  redemption  of  national-bank  notes  which  have  gone  into 
liquidation. 

Your  committee  do  not  concede  that  the  redemption  of  national-bank 
notes  is  a  payment  of  a  national  debt  as  contemplated  by  the  sinking- 
fund  law,  and  that  such  payments  for  the  redemption  of  national-bank 
notes  under  the  act  of  July  14,  1890,  should  be  made  out  of  the  current 
receipts  in  the  Treasury.  If  this  amount  is  added  to  the  requirements 
of  the  sinking  fund,  it  will  show  $116,000,000  due  that  fund  on  the 
30th  of  June,  1894. 


RECEIPTS  AND  EXPENDITURES.  99 

DEFICIT  CONFESSED  BY   FOSTER. 

Secretary  Foster  stated  that  in  his  opinion  the  annual  receipts  of  the 
Government  should  be  at  once  increased.  He  also  stated  that  in  his 
opinion  there  would  be  a  deficit  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  1894,  and 
said  that  if  he  had  the  management  of  the  Treasury  in  the  future  he 
should  insist  upon  an  increase  of  the  annual  revenue  to  the  extent  of 
$50,000,000.  This  increase,  he  stated,  should  be  made  to  meet  the  con- 
ditions to  which  reference  has  been  made  in  this  report,  and  also  for 
the  purpose  of  increasing  to  the  extent  of  $25,000,000  the  gold-reserve 
fund  of  $100,000,000,  which  increase  he  earnestly  recommended.  (H. 
R.  Report,  52d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  2651,  March  3,  1893.) 

Mr.  Foster,  in  his  report  December  5,  1892,  said: 


RECEIPTS  AND  EXPENDITURES. 

FISCAL  YEAR,    1892. 

"The  revenues  of  the  Government  from  all  sources  for  the  fiscal 
year  ended  June  30,  1892,  were  $425,868,260.22;  expenditures,  $415,- 
953,806.56,  leaving  a  surplus  of  $9,914,453.66.  To  this  sum  was 
added  $16,232,721.00,  deposited  in  the  Treasury  under  the  Act  of 
July  14,  1890,  for  the  redemption  of  national  bank  notes. 

4lS  compared  with  the  fiscal  year  1891,  the  receipts  for  1892  have 
fallen  off  $32,675,972.81.  There  was  a  decrease  of  $10,349,- 
354.16  in  the  ordinary  expenditures." 

FISCAL  YEAR,  1893. 

"For  the  present  year  the  revenues  are  estimated  as  follows:  Total 
estimated  revenues,  $463,336,350.44.  The  expenditures  for  the  same' 
period  are  estimated  as  follows:  Total  estimated  expenditures, '$461,- 
336,350.44,  leaving  an  estimated  surplus  for  the  year  of  $2,000,000.00." 

"The  following  is  a,  statement  of  the  probable  condition  of  the 
Treasury  at  the  close  of  the  present  fiscal  year,  June  30,  1893: 
Cash  in  the  Treasury  July    1,    1892,  including  gold 

reserve   ' $126,692,377.03 

Surplus  for  year,  as  above 2,000,000.00 

Deposits  during  the  year  for  redemption  of  national 

bank   notes 2,500,000 .  00 

Total  amount  available $131,192,377.03 

Less — 

Redemption  of  national  bank  notes  dur- 
ing the  year $9,500,000.00 

Redemption  of  bonds,  interest  notes  and 

fractional  currency  during  the  year..      700,000.00 

$10,200,000.00 


Cash  balance  available,  June  30,  1893 $120,992,377 .03 

I 


100  RECEIPTS  AND  EXPENDITURES. 


FISCAL  YEAR,   1894. 

"It  is  estimated  that  the  revenue  of  the  Government 
for  the  fiscal  year  1894  will  be  on  basis  named 
below   $490,121,365.38 

Total  estimated  appropriations,  exclusive  of  sinking 

FUND    ^ 457,261,335.33 

Or  an  estimated  surplus  of 32,860,030.05 

To  which  add  cash  balance  above  Gold  Reserve,  June 

30,  1893 20,992,377.03 

Making  an  estimated  balance  of 53,852,407.08 

From  which  deduct  accrued   and  accruing  obligations, 

estimated  as  follows 6,000,000.00 

Leaving    47,852,407.08 

AGAINST  WHICH  THERE  WILL  REMAIN  ON  JUNE  30,  1893, 
UNEXPENDED  BALANCE  OF  CONTINUING  APPROPRIA- 
TIONS FOR  HEAVY  ORDNANCE,  RIVERS  AND  HARBORS, 
INCREASE  TO  THE  NAVY  AND  PUBLIC  BUILDINGS,  AMOUNT- 
ING TO  $44,000,000. 

"NO  ACCOUNT  IS  MADE  IN  THE  FOREGOING  OF  THE  RE- 
QUIREMENTS OF  THE  SINKING  FUND  FOR  1894,  AMOUNT- 
ING TO  $48,600,000,  BEYOND  THE  REDEMPTION  OF  PAST  DUE 
BONDS  FRACTIONAL  CURRENCY  AND  NATIONAL  BANK 
NOTES  ESTIMATED  AT  $5,000,000." 

ANTE   ELECTION   ESTIMATES— THESE  WERE. 

"The  estimated  receipts  are  based  upon  conditions  prevailing  prior 
to  the  late  election."     (Secy.  Foster's  Report,  Dec.  5,  1892,  p.  24.) 

NEEDED  "CASH"  AND  GOLD. 

"OnQ  of  the  embarrassments  to  the  Treasury,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Secretary,  is  the  inability,  with  the  limited  amount  of  cash  on  hand, 
above  the  $100,000,000  reserve  to  keep  up  a  sufficient  gold  supply. 
When  the  demand  comes  for  the  exportation  of  gold  the  Treasury 
is  called  upon  to  furnish  it. 

If  this  demand  should  prove  to  he  as  large  the  coming  year  as  it 
has  been  for  the  past  two  years,  gold  in  the  Treasury  would  he  dimin- 
ished to  or  heloio  the  reserve  line." 

"In  view,  therefore,  of  these  increasing  liabilities,  the  Reserve  in 

the  Treasury should  be  increased  to  the  extent  at  least 

of  20  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  the  Treasury  Notes  issued  and  to  be 
issued  under  the  Act  of  July  14th,  1890 — Sherman  law." 

He  then  recommended  that: 

MORE   REVENUE  AND  GOLD   NEEDED— SAYS   SECRETARY 

FOSTER. 

"I  think  the  revenue  should  be  so  increased  as  to  enable  the 
Treasury  Department  to  maintain  a  gold  reserve  of  not  less  than 
$125,000,000.00,  and  to  maintain  a  comfortable  \vorking  balance  in 
the  Treasury."     (Treas.  Report,  Dec.  5,  1892,  p.  29.) 

It  is  very  plain  if  Mr.  Foster  had  literally  said,  in  his  report, 
December  5,  1892,  above  quoted,  "that  there  would  be  a  deficit 
during  the  next  fiscal  year,"  he  would  have  said  no  more  than 
what  his  report  actually  shows.  When  the  House  Committee, 
three  months  later,  quizzed  him  on  the  subject,  he  confessed  that 
there  would  be  a  deficit  "the  next  fiscal  year"— X894. 


RECEIPTS  AND  EXPENDITURES.  101 

ANNUAL   REPORT,  1890,  BY  WINDOM. 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  (Windom),  Decem- 
ber 1,  1890,  says: 

"The  loss  of  precious  metal  by  net  export,  during  the  year  was: 
gold  $4,253,057;  silver  $8,545,455." 

The  Sherman  and  McKinley  laws  took  effect  in  the  summer  of 
1890. 

MOVEMENT  OF  GOLD  UNDER  THE  McKINLEY  AND  SHER- 
MAN  LAWS,   MR.   FOSTER'S  ADMINISTRATION. 

In  his  first  annual  report,  dated  December  7,  1891,  Mr.  Foster 
said: 

"The  loss  of  gold  by  net  (italics  his)  export  during  the  fiscal  year 
was  $67,946,768. 

"The  loss  of  gold  by  exports  was  materially  larger  during  the  last 
fiscal  year  than  in  any  recent  years.  The  heavy  movement  commenced 
in  February,  1891,  and  did  not  cease  until  the  close  of  July.  The 
total  amount  exported  from  the  port  of  New  York  during  this  period 
was  $70,223,494.31. 

"It  is  gratifying  to  report  that  a  return  movement  of  gold  is  well 
under  way,  which  has  aggregated  since  the  first  of  July,  at  the  port 
of  New  York  alone,  $27,854,000. 

"In  the  report  of  the  Director  of  the  Mint  will  be  found  an  article 
treating  in  detail  of  the  movement  of  gold  of  the  United  States,  and 
pointing  out  some  of  the  causes  which  are  believed  to  have  operated 
to  produce  the  same." 

On  this  subject,  November  1,  1892,  the  mint  director,  Mr.  Leech, 
in  part,  said: 

REMARKABLE   EXPORTS  OF  GOLD. 

"In  the  Summer  of  1890,  a  movement  of  gold  from  this  country 
occurred,  which,  while  by  no  means  as  serious  in  amount  as  its 
predecessor,  was  somewhat  remarkable  as  a  monetary  transaction, 
considering  the  low  rate  of  sight  sterling  exchange  which  obtained 
during  the  period.    . 

"This  movement  aggregated  in  less  than  two  months  the  sum  of 
$15,672,982." 

SERIOUS  TROUBLE. 

"In  February  of  the  present  year  (1891)  another  movement  of  gold 
to  Europe  commenced,  which  did  not  cease  until  the  close  of  July 
....  caused  hy  far  the  most  serious  loss  of  gold  which  this  country  has 
sustained  for  many  years.  The  total  amount  exported  from  the  port 
of  New  York  was  $70,223,494.31. 

The  heavy  losses  incurred  by  European  capitalists  in  South 
American  countries,  the  resulting  financial  disturbances  and  uneasi- 
ness, etc.,  not  only  greatly  restricted  this  credit,  but  led  to  a  con- 
tinuous pressure,  more  or  less  strong,  for  gold  to  strengthen  the 
reserves  of  the  banks  in  England,  France  and  Germany. 

Russia,  at  the  same  time,  withdrew  from  the  depositories  of  Western 
Europe  large  quantities  of  gold,  thus  adding  greatly  to  the  drain  and 
increasing  the  pressure  for  the  import  of  gold  from  the  United  State?, 
this  country  being  the  only  outside  port  from  which  gold  in  large 
amounts  could  be  readily  dra^^^l. 


102  RECEIPTS  AND  EXPENDITURES. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  Bank  of  England  paid  a  premium 
for  American  gold  coin,  and  increased  that  premium  from  time  to 
time  as  the  financial  crisis  grew  more  threatening." 

BALANCE   OF   TRADE   AGAINST   US. 

**The  balance  of  trade,  for  these  reasons,  being  against  us,  and  the 
pressing  need  for  gold  in  London,  Paris  and  Berlin,  I  count  very 
largely  for  the  heavy  export  of  gold  during  these  five  months." 

ANNUAL    REPORT,    DECEMBER,    1892. 
In  his  report,  Issued  February  5,  1892,  Secretary  Foster  said: 

"The  net  loss  of  gold  by  exports  during  the  fiscal  year  was  only 
$142,654  against  a  loss  in  the  preceding  fiscal  year  of  $67,946,768." 

MINT  REPORT,  1892. 

The  mint  director,  Mr.  Leech,  in  his  report,  November  1,  1892, 
after  repeating  the  causes  of  our  export  loss  of  gold,  recited  in 
his  report  for  1891  as  above  given,  gave  two  additional  reasons 
for  this  gold  movement  to  wit: 

(1)  "The  Austrian  Government  has  been  making  strenuous 
exertions  during  the  last  year  to  obtain  sufficient  gold  for  a  strong 
basis  in  establishing  a  gold  standard  for  its  currency." 

ONE  GREAT  CAUSE. 

(2)  "One  great  cause  of  continued  large  shipment  of  gold  is,  as 
stated  by  all  exchanges  and  financial  writers,  the  distrust  of  the 
United  States  securities  raised  in  the  minds  of  European  investors 
by  the  large  and  increasing  preponderance  of  silver  over  gold  in  the 
reserve  held  for  the  redemption  of  our  paper  currency." 

Thus  we  see  Mr.  Foster,  in  effect,  condemns  "both  the  Sherman 
and  the  McKinley  tariff  laws  while  Mr.  Leech  condemns  the 
Sherman  law  as  causing  our  troubles.  Whether  both  or  either 
law  caused  us  to  lose  our  gold,  a  deficit  in  the  treasury,  or  the 
panic  of  1893,  or  all  three,  the  fact  remains  that  they  were  both 
Republican  laws  operating  under  a  Republican  administration, 
and  the  Democrats  had  voted  against  their  enactment  and  after- 
wards denounced  as  a  "cowardly  makeshift,"  partially  repealed, 
the  Sherman  law  November  1,  1893,  and  later  repealed  the 
McKinley  tariff. 

In  1890,  under  the  high  protective  tariff  of  1883  and  its 
successor,  the  McKinley  tariff,  and  an  overflowing  treasury. 
Secretary  Windom,  to  avoid  a  panic  as  he  said,  expended  in  buying 
bonds  all  the  available  money  in  the  treasury,  except  the  national 
bank  redemption  fund  of  $54,000,000.  The  silver  coin  and  bank 
deposits  he  said  were  unavailable  assets. 

When  the  Sherman  and  McKinley  laws  began  operations  under 
a  Republican  administration,  our  gold  reserve  was  intact,  our 
treasury  overflowing,  but  "panic  and  disaster"  threatened,  and 
was  partially  averted  by  Mr.  Windom  buying  bonds  and  using 
the  bank  redemption  fund  as  his  only  actual  surplus,  but  in 
two  years,  under  the  same  administration  and  laws,  our  net  gold 


CASH  TURNED  OVER.  103 

exports  are  alarming,  the  treasury  is  empty,  the  gold  reserve  in 
danger,  legal  tenders  are  heing  exchanged  in  New  York  for  gold 
to  replenish  the  reserve,  and  the  panic  of  1890  is  in  full  bloom  in 
1892  and  1893. 

In  March,  1889,  the  Cleveland  administration  turned  over  to 
the  Harrison  administration,  exclusive  of  the  $100,000,000  gold 
reserve,  over  $230,000,000,  while  the  Harrison  administration, 
four  years  thereafter,  turned  over  to  the  Cleveland  administra- 
tion, exclusive  of  the  gold  reserve,  less  than  $63,000,000,  the  net 
balance  in  the  treasury  of  about  $24,000,000  being  made  up  of 
small  coins,  federal  deposits  in  the  banks,  and  the  balance  of 
the  national  bank  redemption  fund,  which,  during  this  adminis- 
tration had  been  turned  into  the  treasury  as  so  much  cash, 
amounting  by  this  time  in  gross  to  at  least  $70,000,000. 

The  United  States  "Treasury  Department,"  "July  1,  1904," 
issued  a  "Circular  No.  72,"  which  shows  the  money  paid  over  by 
the  two  administrations  as  follows: 


CASH  TURNED  OVER. 

END   OF   FIRST   CLEVELAND   ADMINISTRATION. 

CONDITION  OF  THE  TREASURY  MARCH   1,   1889,  MARCH   1, 
1893,  MAUCH  1,  1897. 

"On  the  1st  day  of  March,  1889,  the  beginning  of  President  Har- 
rison's Administration,  the  available  funds  in  the  Treasury,  ex- 
clusive of  the  $100,000,000  gold  reserve,  were  as  follows: 

Agency  account $64,502,445.02 

Net  balance  in  Treasury 165,846,471.10 

Total    $230,348,916.12 

CASH   TURNED  OVER   BY  THE   HARRISON 
ADMINISTRATION. 

In  addition  to  the  ordinary  revenues  received  during  President 
Harrison's  Administration,  there  was  covered  into  the  Treasury  by 
direction  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  July  14,  1890,  $54,207,975.75, 
which  had  been  held  in  trust  under  the  law  as  a  fund  for  the  re- 
demption of  national  bank  notes;  and  such  notes  are  now  redeemed, 
upon  presentation,  from  the  general  cash  in  the  Treasury. 

On  the  1st  day  of  March,  1893,  the  available  funds  in  the  Treasury, 
exclusive  of  the  $100,000,000  gold  reserve,  were  as  follows: 

Agency    account $38,365,832.90 

Net  balance  in  Treasury 24,084,742.28 

Total    $62,450,575.18" 


104  CASH  TURNED  OVER. 

SMALL    SILVER    COIN    AND    BANK     DEPOSITS    ON     HAND 
MARCH   1,   1893. 

The  amount  of  national  bank  redemption  funds  on  hand  March 
1,  1893,  was  $22,272,061,  of  fractional  silver  $10,971,875;  the  two 
items  amounting  to  $33,243,936.  Deduct  these  sums  from  the 
balance  stated  March  1,  1893,  $24,084,742.28  and  there  was  then  a 
real  deficiency  of  $9,159,193.72.  And  if  we  deduct  the  $10,000,000 
bank  deposits,  the  deficiency  is  increased  that  much  more,  or 
to  $19,159,193.72. 

To  be  able  to  even  turn  over  the  $100,000,000  gold  reserve 
intact,  Mr.  Foster  exchanged  legal  tenders  from  the  treasury  for 
gold  and  was  in  New  York  in  the  early  part  of  1893  for  that 
purpose.  In  this  way,  he  secured  from  $6,000,000  to  $8,000,000 
in  gold  and  with  this,  and  that  gold  which  came  into  the  Treasury 
in  the  usual  way,  he  "paddled  along"  until  the  end  of  his  term, 
and  turned  over  to  Mr.  Carlisle  on  the  day  he  took  actual  charge 
of  the  Treasury,  March  7,  1893,  only  "$983,410  in  excess  of  the 
lawful  reserve." 

Mr.  Carlisle,  December  19,  1893,  in  his  annual  report,  said: 

"The  amount  of  free  gold  in  the  Treasury  on  the  Tth  of  March, 
1893,  was  $100,982,410,  or    $983,410  in  excess  of  the  lawful  reserve." 

In  a  speech  delivered  in  1895  in  Ohio,  Mr.  Foster  said: 

"On  the  fourth  of  March,  1893,  we  turned  over  to  the  new  admin- 
istration nearly  $125,000,000  in  cash,  more  than  $100,000,000  was  in 
gold." 

On  December  26,  1895,  General  Grosvenor  inserted  in  the 
Record,  as  part  of  his  speech,  this  statement  of  Mr.  Foster. 
(Record,  December  26,  1895,  p.  320). 

In  this  same  speech,  Mr.  Foster  also  made  this  unexplained 
statement,  to  wit: 

"The  plates  for  these  bonds  had  been  prepared  while  Mr.  Sherman 
was  Secretary,  and  quite  a  supply  was  alreadj  printed  and  ready 
for  execution."     {Record,  December  26,  1895,  p.  320.) 

Mr.  Sherman  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from  March,  1877, 
to  March,  1881.  In  1893  he  was,  and  had  been  for  some  time,  a 
member  of  the  Senate,  with  no  power,  as  a  senator,  to  order  such 
plates  made.  The  question  is,  when  did  Mr.  Sherman  as  "secre- 
tary" order  these  or  other  bond  plates  to  be  made?  Did  Mr. 
Sherman,  while  secretary,  fix  to  issue  bonds?  Is  it  possible  that 
"threatened  panic  and  disaster"  should  occur  under  a  protective 
tariff  and  a  Republican  administration?  Indisputably  and  now 
confessedly,  Mr.  Foster  issued  a  bond  plate  order  on  February  20, 
1893,  as  hereafter  shown. 

Mr.  Foster  said  to  the  committee  in  February,  1893,  that  he 
had  no  trouble  in  getting  gold  if  he  had  the  money  with  which 
to  get  it,  hence  he,  in  his  report,  December,  1892,  called  on  Con- 
gress in  February  for  $50,000,000  more  revenue  and  $25,000,000 
more  as  a  permanent  addition  to  the  gold  reserve,  and  said  he 
would  have  it  that  way  if  he  had  to  manage  the  Treasury. 


OASH  TURNED  OYER.  105 


But  with  the  condition  of  the  Treasury,  as  it  was  and  had  "been 
for  many  months,  Mr.  Foster  could  not  exchange  money  from  the 
Treasury  many  times  to  get  gold.  Some  other  means  must  be 
employed  for  him  to  tide  over  and  unload  an  empty  Treasury  on 
Mr.  Carlisle,  his  successor.  So  on  February  20,  1893,  he  gave  a 
"hurry  up"  order  for  the  preparation  of  bond  plates,  to  issue 
bonds  wherewith  to  buy  gold  and  fill  up  a  bankrupt  Treasury. 

M  ^.    FOSTER   OMITTED  TO   TELL. 

Although  Mr.  Foster's  testimony  before  the  House  Committee, 
February  25,  1893,  covers  nearly  nineteen  pages,  yet  it  fails  to 
show  that  four  days  before — ^February  20 — Mr.  Foster  had 
issued  this  bond  plate  order,  which  reads  as  follows: 

COPY  OF  FOSTER  BOND   PLATE  ORDER. 

Tbeasuey  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretaey, 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  25,  1897. 
Sib — ^I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
this  date,  requesting  the  original  letter,  or  a  certified  copy  thereof, 
written  by  Mr.  Secretary  Foster  February  20,  1893,  addressed  to  the 
Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing,  authorizing  the  prep- 
aration of  certain  plates.  In  compliance  with  said  request  I  submit 
below  a  correct  copy  of  the  letter  in  question,  also  a  copy  of  the  text 
of  the  proposed  bond. 

[Copy  of  letter.] 
Tbeasuby  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Washington,  D.  C,  February  20,  1893. 
Sir — ^You  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  prepare  designs  for 
the  3  per  cent,  bonds  provided  in  a  Senate  amendment  to  the  sundry 
civil  bill  now  pending.  The  denominations  which  should  first  receive 
attention  are  100s  and  1,000s  of  the  coupon  bonds,  and  100s,  1,0003 
and  10,000s  of  the  registered  bonds.  This  authority  is  given  in  ad- 
vance of  the  enactment,  in  view  of  pressing  contingencies,  and  you  are 
directed  to  hasten  the  preparation  of  the  designs  and  plates  in  every 
possible  manner.  I  inclose  a  memorandum  for  your  guidance  in  pre- 
paring the  script,  for  the  body  of  the  bond. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

(Signed)       Chables  Fosteb,  Secretary. 
The  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing, 
text  of  the  bond. 

Washington,  April  1,  1893. 

This  bond  is  issued  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section 

of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  sundry  civil  ex- 
penses of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1894,  and 
for  other  purposes,"  approved  March  3,  1893,  and  is  redeemable  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  United  States  after  the  1st  day  of  April,  A.  D.,  1898, 
in  coin  of  the  standard  value  of  the  United  States  on  said  March  3, 
1893,  with  interest  in  such  coin  from  the  day  of  the  date  hereof  at  the 
rate  of  3  per  cent,  per  annum,  payable  semi-annually  on  the  1st  days  of 
October  and  April  in  each  year.  The  principal  and  interest  are  ex- 
empt from  the  payment  of  all  taxes  or  duties  of  the  United  States,  ad 
well  as  from  taxation  in  any  form,  by  or  under  State,  municipal,  or 
local  authority. 

Respectfully,  yours,  L.  J.  Gage,  Secretary. 

Hon.  John  W.  Gaines, 

Eoiise  of  Representatives. 

The  original  order  was  on  file  December  25,  1897  in  the  Bureau 
of  Engraving  and  Printing,  Washington,  D.  C. 


106  CASH  TURNED  OYER. 

Senator  Sherman  introduced  an  amendment  to  an  appropria- 
tion bill — Sundry  Civil — in  the  Senate,  to  enact  a  law  permitting 
the  issuance  of  these  bonds.  The  order,  dated  February  20,  1893, 
itself,  in  part  reads: 

"This  bond  is  issued  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Sec. 

of  an  act,  entitled  *An  act  making  appropriations  for  sundry  civil 
expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1894, 
and  for  other  purposes,  approved  March  3,  1893.' " 

This  shows  this  order,  dated  February  20,  was  given  to  issue 
bonds  under  a  law  yet  unapproved  to  be  ''approved  March  3,  1893." 
The  Senate  passed  the  Sherman  amendment  but  the  House 
defeated  it.  The  Democrats  inheriting  an  empty  treasury,  Mr. 
Carlisle  issued  bonds  under  the  old  law. 

Recent  letters  on  this  subject  from  Mr.  Carlisle  and  others  read 
thus: 

House  of  Representatives, 
Washington,  May  29,  1906. 
Hon.  John  G.  Carlism, 

30  Broad  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

My  Dear  Sib — ^The  inclosed  extract  from  the  Congressional  Record 
contains  a  statement  made  by  Gen.  Charles  H.  Grosvenor,  of  Ohio,  on 
the  26th  inst. 

If  you  feel  inclined,  I  would  be  glad  to  know  whether  or  not  the 
references  therein  made  to  you  are  correct.  You  will  recall  that  the 
order  to  the  Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing  was 
issued  by  Secretary  Foster  in  February,  1893.  Mr.  Grosvenor  imder- 
takes  to  create  the  impressioij'  from  this  letter  that  this  order  to  pre- 
pare the  plates  for  ine  printing  of  the  bonds  was  made  not  for  the 
purpose  of  meeting  a  deficit  in  the  public  revenues  which  existed,  or 
would  exist  at  the  end  of  the  Harrison  administration,  but  was  made 
at  your  suggestion. 

I  write  this  letter  after  conferring  with  Mr.  Williams,  of  Missis- 
sippi, as  we  do  not  want  the  statement  of  Mr.  Grosvenor  to  go  uncon- 
tradicted if  it  is  not  correct. 

I  would  be  glad  to  have  authority  to  use  any  reply  you  may  .make  to 
this  letter, 

Very  truly,  yours,  C.  L.  Babtlett. 

Curtis,  Mallet-Prevost  &  Colt, 
Attorneys  and  Counselors  at  Law, 
30  Broad  Street,  New  York,  June  5,  1906. 
Hon.  Charles  Bartlett, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  G. 
Dear  Sir:  On  my  return  to  the  city  I  find  your  favor  of  May  29, 
with  its  inclosure.  Two  or  three  years  ago  I  received  a  letter  from  the 
Hon.  Judson  Harmon  upon  the  same  subject,  which  I  answered, 
stating,  in  substance,  that  I  had  no  connection  whatever  with  the  ar- 
rangement said  to  have  been  made  between  my  predecessor,  Hon 
Charles  Foster,  and  certain  New  York  banks,  by  which  they  were  to 
advance  to  the  Treasury  Department  the  sum  of  $50,000,  or  any  other 
amount,  in  gold  or  otherwise.  I  never  heard  of  that  arrangement 
until  some  months  after  I  had  become  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 
then  my  information  was  derived  from  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and 
Printing,  to  which  an  order  had  been  sent  by  my  predecessor  for  the 
printing  of  the  contemplated  bonds.  I  never  had  any  conversation 
with  Mr.  Gorman  or  my  predecessor  upon  that  subject,  but,  according 
to  my  best  recollection,  I  had  interviews  with  both  of  them  in  relation 
to  the  amendment  which  Mr.  Sherman  had  off'ered  and  which  is  re- 
ferred to  in  the  letter  you  inclose  to  me.  I  approved  of  that  amend- 
ment. In  view  of  the  condition  of  the  Treasury  Department  at  that 
time,  it  was  my  opinion  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  be 


CASH  TURNED  OVER. 


107 


clothed  with  tlie  power  which  the  Sherman  amendment  conferred  upon 
him  in  order  that,  if  it  should  become  necessary  to  do  so,  he  might 
procure  gold  by  issuing  and  selling  a  3  per  cent,  bond  instead  of  bonds 
bearing  4  per  cent,  and  5  per  cent.,  which  were  the  only  ones  then 
authorized  by  law.  In  addition  to  the  withdrawals  of  gold  from  the 
Treasury,  which  were  then  going  on  at  a  rapid  rate,  the  monthly  re- 
ceipts had  been  for  several  months  previous  to  that  time^,  and  were 
then,  less  than  the  monthly  expenditures  of  the  Government,  as  will 
be  seen  by  an  examination  of  the  official  records  of  the  Department. 
Yours,  truly,  J.  G.  Carlisle. 

REPUBLICAN   FABRICATION   OVERTAKEN. 

The  McKinley  tariff  act  was  in  full  operation  throughout  1893 
and  eight  months  of  1894,  that  is,  to  August  28,  1894,  when  the 
Wilson  tariff  act  repealed  it.  Therefore  the  first  eighteen  months 
of  the  second  Cleveland  administration  was  under  the  McKinley 
tariff  act.  Notwithstanding  these  well  known  official  facts,  the 
cringing,  "stand  pat"  Republicans  contended  and  charged  that 
the  "commercial  failures"  of  1893  and  1894  occurred  under  the 
"Democratic  low  tariff  period,"  as  shown  by  the  Republican  Cam- 
paign Book  of  1904,  which  contains,  p.  113,  a  table  printed  thus: 


Commercial 


Failures 
[From 


AND  Average  of  Liabilities,  1880  to  1903. 

Dun's  Review,  New  York.  ] 

Total  for  the  year. 


Calendar  year. 


Number 

of 
failures. 


1880     4,735 

1881     5,582, 

1882     6,738 

1888     9,184 

1884     10,968 

1885     10,637 

1886    9,834 

1887     9,634 

1888     10,676 

1889     10,882 

1890     10,907 

1891     12,273 

1892    10,344 

1893*      15,242 

1894*     13,885 

1895*     13,197 

1896*     15,088 

1897     13,351 

1898     12,186 

1899     9,337 

1900     10,774 

1901     11,002 

1902     11,615 

1903     12,069 


Number  of 
business  con- 

cerns. 

746323" 

781,689 

822,256 

863,993 

904,759 

919,990 

969,841 

994,281 

1,046,662 

1,051.140 

1,110,590 

1,142,951 

1,172,705 

1.193,113 

1,114,174 

1,209,282 

1,151,579 

1,058,521 

1,105,830 

1,147,595 

1,174,300 

1,219,242 

1,253,172 

1,281,481 


Per    ct. 

of 

failures. 

0763" 

.71 

.82 

1.06 

1.21 

1.16 

1.01 

.90 

1.02 

1.04 

.98 

1.07 

.88 

1.28 

1.25 

1.09 

1.31 

1.26 

1.10 

.81 

.92 

.90 

.93 

1.12 


Amount  of 
liabilities. 
'$65,752,00ir 

81,155,932 
101,547,564 
172,874,172 
226,343,427 
124,220,321 
114,644,119 
167,560,944 
123,829,973 
148,784,337 
189,856,964 
189,868,638 
114,044,167 
346,779.889 
172,992,856 
173,196,060 
226,096,834 
154,332,071 
130,662,899 

90,879,889 
138,495,673 
113,092,376 
117,476,769 
155,444,185 


Average 
liabilities. 
$137886 
14,530 
15,070 
18,823 
20,632 
11,678 
11,651 
17,392 
11,595 
13,672 
17,406 
15,471 
11.025 
22,751 
12,458 
13,124 
14,992 
11,559 
10,722 
9,733 
12,854 
10,279 
10,114 
12,879 


•Democratic  and  low-tariff  period. 

— Republican  Campaign  Book,  1904,  p.  114. 

Taking  the  only  complete  years  during  which  the  McKinley 
and  Wilson  tariff  acts  were  in  operation,  and  striking  an  average 
"amount  of  liabilities"  for  the  two  periods,  and  this  result  is 
sh()wn : 

1891-2-3— McKinley  tariff. .' $216,897,564 

1895-6    —Wilson  Tariff 199,646,447 


Take  the  same  years  and  "number  of  business  concerns"  failed 
average  this: 

Average  for  period. 

1891-2-3— McKinley  tariff 1,169,589 

1895-6    —Wilson  tariff 1,180,430 


108  CA8H  TURNED  OVER. 

The  number  of  "failures"  were: 

1891-2-3— McKinley  tariff 12,619 

1895-6    —Wilson  tariff 14,142 

This  same  Republican  table  shows  that  for  the  six  full  years — 
1898  to  1903 — during  which  the  Dingley  tariff  was  in  operation 
the  total  failures  were  7,181,620,  or  an  average  for  the  period  of 
1,196,696.    Let  the  blind  read: 

DINGLEY  TARIFF. 

AVERAGE  LIABILITIES. 

1898 .- 1,105,830      1901 1,219,242 

1899 1,147,595      1902 1,253,172 

1900 1,174,300      1903 1,281,481 

Total 7,181,620 

Average  per  year 1,196,936 

The  average  "liabilities"  for  the  period — six  years — ^was  $124,- 
241,965. 

MR.  FOSTER  IN  NEW  YORK  EXCHANGING  LEGAL  TENDERS 

FOR  GOLD. 

The  Republicans  deny  that  Mr.  Foster  exchanged  legal  tenders 
for  gold,  but  here  is  the  incontrovertible  proof: 

Mr.  Alexander  Dana  Noyes,  in  his  book,  "Thirty  Years  in 
American  Finance,"  in  part,  says: 

NEW  YORK   BANKS  TURNED  OVER  $6,000,000  TO  $8,000,000 
TO   MR.   FOSTER. 

"In  February  Mr.  Foster  came  in  person  to  New  York  to  urge  the 
banks  to  give  up  gold  voluntarily  in  exchange  for  the  Treasury's 
legal  tender  surplus.  {New  York  Financial  Chronicle,  Feb.  11-18, 
1896.)  From  a  strict  commercial  point  of  view,  there  was  good 
reason  why  the  bank  should  not  make  any  such  exchange.  But  the 
plea  that  a  panic  must  at  all  hazards  be  averted,  combined  with  the 
argument  of  patriotic  support  of  the  Government  at  length  prevailed. 

"The  New  York  banks  turned  over  to  the  Treasury,  in  exchange 
for  notes,  $6,000,000  to  $8,000,000.  {Neic  York  Tribune,  Feb.  9,  10, 
11,  1893;  New  York  Financial  Chronicle,  Feb.  11,  1893.) 

*'This,  with  some  small  amounts  still  paid  through  the  customs 
revenue,  was  enough  to  keep  the  Treasury  afloat  until  March  4,  when 
the  entire  problem  could  be  turned  over  to  the  new  Executive.  To 
his  successor  in  the  Treasury  Mr.  Foster  left  exactly  $100,982,410  in 
the  gold  reserve  (Treas.  Rep.,  1893,  p.  72).  and  barely  $25,000,000 
in  other  forms  of  money.     (Same  report,  p.  96.) 

"Probably  no  financial  administration  has  entered  office  under  such 
disheartening  conditions." 

Mr.  Horace  White,  of  New  York,  in  his  book,  "Money  and 
Banking,"  states  that  Mr.  Foster  came  to  New  York  city  and 
exchanged  legal  tender  notes  for  gold  to  tide  over  until  he  could 
be  succeeded  by  Mr.  Carlisle.    Mr.  White  says: 

GOLD  EXPORTS  AGAIN  "RESUMED." 

"Gold  exports  were  resumed  in  1892.  In  November  of  that  year  the 
gold  in  the  Treasury  had  fallen  from  $185,000,000  (in  August,  1890) 
to  $124,000,000,  and  was  still  declining.  Secretary  Foster  was  much 
depressed.  When  he  came  to  New  York  to  speak  at  a  dinner  at  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  he  said,  among  other  things,  that  the  Govern- 
ment intended  to  maintain  gold  payments,  even  if  it  became  necessary 


CASH  TURNED  OVER.  109 

to  sell  Government  bonds  for  the  purpose.  This  was  an  admission  on 
his  part  that  gold  payments  could  not  be  continued  without  resorting 
to  extraordinary  means.  Probably  Mr.  Foster  made  this  speech  in 
order  to  test  public  sentiment  and  to  find  out  whether  he  would  be 
sustained  in  issuing  Government  bonds  in  time  of  peace.  There  had 
been  no  increase  of  the  bonded  debt  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War, 
and  some  persons  in  high  places  denied  that  there  was  any  legal  au- 
thority to  issue  new  bonds.  Apparently  Mr.  Foster  was  satisfied  by 
the  applause  with  which  his  announced  purpose  was  received  by  his 
hearers  and  by  the  press,  for  shortly  afterwards  he  issued  an  order  to 
the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing  to  prepare  new  bonds.  This 
order  was  dated  February  20,  1893,  and  Mr.  Foster  was  to  go  out  of 
office  on  the  4th  of  March.  Naturally,  he  preferred  to  put  upon  his 
successor  the  onus  of  issuing  the  bond  if  he  could. 

GOT  THE  GOLD. 

So  he  came  to  New  York  and  persuaded  the  banks  to  give  him  a 
few  millions  of  gold  in  exchange  for  legal  tender  notes,  enough  to 
carry  him  along  until  the  4th  of  March.  This  enabled  him  to  glide 
out  of  office,  leaving  the  $100,000,000  redemption  fund  intact,  but 
with  only  $982,410  gold  in  excess  of  that  sum  and  with  the  penumbra 
of  a  deficit  in  full  view." 

On  November  4,  1894,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Carlisle, 
in  a  letter  to  the  Hon.  W.  R.  Morrison,  showed  the  operations  of 
the  McKinley  tariff,  the  amount  of  money  paid  over  by  the  Cleve- 
land administration  in  1889  to  the  Harrison  administration,  the 
amount  of  funds  turned  over  by  the  Harrison  administration 
four  years  later  1893  to  the  Cleveland  administration  and  stating 
that  over  $54,000,000  of  national  bank  trust  funds  were  covered 
into  the  treasury  under  Mr.  Foster's  administration  and  that  Mr. 
Foster  "had  held"  up  the  payments  of  Uncle  Sam's  debts  "to  a 
very  considerable  extent  to  avoid  a  reduction  of  the  balance  on 
aand." — Mr.  Carlisle  said: 

DEFICITS    UNDER    THE    McKINLEY    TARIFF. 

«  ****** 

"The  records  of  the  Department  show  that  during  the  fiscal  year 
1888  the  receipts  were  $111,341,273  in  excess  of  the  expenditures; 
during  1889,  $87,761,080;  during  1890,  $85,040,271;  during  1891,  the 
year  after  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill,  $26,838,541;  in  1892, 
$9,914,453;  in  1893,  $2,341,674;  and  in  the  year  1894,  during  the 
whole  of  which  the  McKinley  hill  was  in  full  force,  the  expenditures 
exceeded  the  receipts  to  the  amount  of  $69,803,260,  notwithstanding 
the  expenditures  were  $16,752,676  less  than  in  the  preceding  year. 
You  will  thus  observe  that  the  receipts  in  excess  of  expenditures 
diminished  annually  under  the  operation  of  the  McKinley  tariff  act, 
until  finally  a  large  deficiency  was  the  result. 

REDEMPTIONS. 

"The  statement  of  Mr.  McKinley  that  I  had  used  the  gold  reserve  to 
meet  the  daily  expenses  of  the  Goverment  is  incorrect. 

I  enclose  herewith  a  printed  document  containing  the  statements 
made  by  me  before  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  January  last,  from  which  it  will  be  seen  (see  page 
13)  that  United  States  notes  and  Treasury  notes  of  1890  had  been 
redeemed  in  gold  to  the  amount  of  $58,641,866  in  excess  of  the  re- 
serve fund  raised  by  the  sale  of  bonds.  These  redemptions  were 
made  with  gold  received  from  all  the  various  sources  of  revenue. 
The  total  amount  of  United  States  notes  and  Treasury  notes  of  1890 
redeemed  in  gold  up  to  the  present  date  is  $249,808,494,  while  the 
whole  reserve  fund  provided  for  by  law  was  $100,000,000  in  the  first 
instance,  and  the  proceeds  of  the  bonds  sold  in  February  last,  amount- 


110  CASH  TURNED  OVER. 

ing  to  $58,560,000.  Instead,  therefore,  of  using  the  lawful  reserve  to 
defray  ordinary  expenditures,  we  have  in  fact  largely  used  the  ordi- 
nary receipts  for  the  purpose  of  redemption,  the  purpose  for  whicli 
the  reserve  itself  was  intended." 

CASH    PAID   OVER  TO   HARRISON    BY   CLEVELAND 
ADMINISTRATION. 

"On  the  1st  day  of  March,  1889,  the  beginning  of  President  Har- 
rison's Administration,  the  funds  in  the  Treasury  actually  available, 
exclusive  of  the  $100,000,600  reserve,  were  as  follows: 

Agency  account $64,502,445.02 

Net  balance  in  the  Treasury 165,846,471.10 

Total    $230,348,916.12 

CASH  TURNED  OVER  TO  CLEVELAND  BY  HARRISON 

ADMINISTRATION.  Olcvefalld 

On  the  1st  day  of  March,  1893,  the  beginning  of  the  present  (^HPfF" 
son)  Administration,  the  funds  in  the  ireasury  actually  available, 
of  the  $100,000,000  reserve,  were  as  follows: 

Agency  account $38,365,832.90 

Net  balance  in  the  Treasury 24,084,742.28 

Total    $62,450,575.18 

This  statement  is  made  in  accordance  Math  the  form  now  in  use, 
and  exhibits  the  actual  condition  of  the  Treasury  at  the  dates  men- 
tioned, including  all  available  assets  of  every  kind." 

BANK   FUNDS  TURNED   INTO  "CASH." 

"In  addition  to  the  ordinary  receipts  of  the  Government,  there  was, 
as  you  know,  covered  into  the  Treasury  during  the  Administration  of 
President  Harrison,  $54,207,975.75,  which  was  held  in  trust  as  a  fund 
for  the  redemption  of  national  bank  notes.  This  proceeding  was  au- 
thorized by  the  act  of  July  14,  1890,  commonly  known  as  the  "Sher- 
man Act." 

The  item  denominated  "agency  account"  is  that  portion  of  the  mis- 
cellaneous cash  in  the  Treasury  held  for  certain  liabilities  appearing 
on  the  books  of  the  Treasury,  but  not  represented  by  demand  cer- 
tificates or  Treasury  notes  of  1890  outstanding. 

From  the  1st  day  of  March,  1885,  the  beginning  of  Mr.  Cleveland's 
first  Administration,  to  March  1,  1889,  the  public  debt  was  reduced 
$341,448,449.20,  and  from  March  1,  1889,  to  March  1,  1893,  the  reduc- 
tion was  $236,527,666.10." 

MR.  FOSTER  HELD  UP  PAYMENT  OF  UNCLE  SAM'S  DEBTS. 

"It  is  true,  as  you  suggest,  that  for  some  time  previous  to  the  close 
of  the  last  Administration,  warrants  upon  requisition  were  held  up 
to  a  very  considerable  extent  in  order  to  avoid  a  I'eduction  of  the 
balance  on  hand,  but  the  amount  of  these  requisitions  can  not  now 
be  ascertained  Avithout  devoting  a  great  deal  of  time  and  investiga- 
tion on  the  subject.  I  think,  however,  they  amount  to  several  million 
dollars." 

quarterly   deficits   in   1891   and  1892  under  the 
Mckinley  tariff. 

Mr.  Noyes,  in  his  "Thirty  Years  of  American  Finance,"  p.  138, 
says: 

"There  was  a  Treasury  deficit  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  the  fiscal 
year  1891,  the  first  quarterly  deficit  in  many  years   (Treas.  Report, 


CASH  TURNED  OVER.  Ill 


1891,  p.  33)  ;  it  was  repeated  hi  two  of  the  quarterly  periods  of  1892; 
but  in  each  case  a  fortunate,  though  temporary,  expansion  of  the 
revenues  of  other  months  helped  the  Treasury  through  the  year.  At 
last  came  a  season,  when  the  trade  from  which  the  revenue  was 
drawn  contracted,  with  financial  and  political  results  as  extraordi- 
nary as  anything  in  our  history."     (Treas.  R.,  1892,  p.  30.) 

OFFICIAL  PROOF  OF  QUARTERLY   DEFICITS. 

The  receipts,  as  stated  by  the  Treasury  report,  1891,  for  the 
fourth  quarter  were  $84,528,082.41;  expenditures,  $85,436,167.29. 
The  total  receipts  for  the  year,  $393,612,447.31;  expenditures, 
$365,773,905.35. 

The  Treasury  report  for  1892  shows  the  receipts  for  the  second 
quarter  (1892)  were  $83,945,762.40;  expenditures,  $87,196,906.20, 
while  for  the  fourth  quarter  the  receipts  were  $87,140,560.46; 
expenditures,  $89,622,219.85,  the  total  reoeipts  for  the  year  being 
$354,937,784.24;  expenditures,  $345,023,330.58. 

The  annual  surplus  in  either  of  these  years  is  more  than  offset 
by  the  National  Bank  Fund  due  the  banks  at  this  time  without 
charging  off  the  hitherto  "unavailable  money"  in  the  Treasury, 
the  bank  deposits  and  the  limited  tender  silver  coin. 

FINANCIAL  STRINGENCY  AND  "THREATENED  PANIC  AND 
DISASTER"  AS  EARLY  AS  1890,  HARRISON  ADMINISTRA- 
TION, UNDER  TARIFF  1883  AND  McKINLEY  TARIFF. 

To  avert  a  panic  in  1890,  Mr.  Secretary  Windom  was  compelled 
to  purchase  Government  bonds  to  the  amount  of  over  $74,000,000 
at  a  premium  amounting  to  more  than  $22,000,000,  and  he  says 
that  the  bank  deposits  and  the  fractional  silver  w^ere  practically 
of  no  use  as  an  actual  available  surplus  to  meet  public  obliga- 
tions, and  in  his  report  of  December  1,  1890,  said  he  could  not 
use  these  two  items  as  an  "actual  available  surplus,"  but  we  see 
two  years  later,  1892,  Secretary  Foster  did  count  and  use  them 
as  part  of  the  "available  surplus"  to  avoid  showhig  a  deficit. 

Mr.  Windom  also  states  that  the  national  bank  redemption 
fund  was  the  only  "actual  available  surplus"  in  September,  1890, 
in  the  Treasury,  and  with  it  "panic  and  disaster"  were  "averted." 

TREASURY   REPORT,   DECEMBER    1,   1890. 
Secretary  Windom,  in  his  report  (December  1,  1890)  said: 

"Tne  total  apparent  surplus  on  September  10,  when  the  money 
stringency  culminated  was  $99,509,220.53.  Of  this  amount  $24,216,- 
810.96  was  on  deposit  in  the  bank,  and  presumably  in  circulation 
aifnong  the  people,  and  $21^709,379.70  was  fractional  silver,  which  had 
been  in  the  Treasury  vaults  for  several  years,  and  was  not  available 
for  any  considerable  disbursements. 

"Deducting  the  sum  of  these  two  items  ($45,926,184.73)  left  an 
actual  available  surplus  of  only  $53,583^035.80. 

"The  amount  of  the  bank  redemption  fund,  then  in  the  Treasury, 
which  had  been  transferred  to  the  available  funds  by  the  Act  of 
July  14,  1890,  was  $54,000,000,  being  substantially  the  amount  of  the 
available  surplus  on  September  10,  1890.     .     .     . 

"This  banl^  note  fund  had  been  in  the  Treasury  in  varying  amounts 
for  many  years.  In  August,  1887,  it  was  $105,873,095.60,  which  had 
been  gradually  reduced  by  disbursements  to  the  amount  above  named." 


112  DEMOCRATS  INHERITED  CONDITIONS. 

"PANIC  AND  DISASTER  AVERTED"  AS  EARLY  AS  SEPTEM- 
BER, 1890,  BY  USING  NATIONAL  BANK   FUND. 

"At  the  time  when  the  financial  pressure  in  September  reached  its 
climax,  the  extraordinary  disbursements  for  bond  purchases  had  sub- 
stantially exhausted  the  entire  ordinary  Treasury  accumulation, 
and  but  for  the  fact  that  Congress  had  ivisely  had  transferred  the 
bank  note  redemption  fund  to  the  available  cash,  there  would  have 
been  no  money  at  command  in  the  Treasury,  by  which  the  strained 
financial  conditions  could  have  been  relieved  and  threatened  panic 
and  disaster  averted. 

Had  this  fund  been  in  the  banks  instead  of  the  Treasury,  the 
business  of  the  country  would  have  been  adjusted  to  the  increased 
supply,  and  when  the  strain  came  it  would  have  been  impossible  for 
the  banks  to  meet  it.  The  Government  could  not  have  withdrawn  it 
from  the  banks  without  compelling  a  contraction  of  their  loan,  and 
thus  diminishing  their  ability  to  give  relief  to  their  customers." 

m 

Mr.  Windom  says  that  the  bank  deposits  could  not,  with  safety 
to  the  banks  or  in  justice  to  "their  customers,"  be  withdrawn, 
but  Mr.  Foster  did  withdraw  them  down  to  about  $10,000,000  in 
1893.  He  had  to  do  so  for  want  of  money  to  count  and  use  them 
with  the  small  silver  coin  as  "available  cash"  to  avoid  showing  a 
deficit. 


DEMOCRATS  INHERITED  DISCOURAGING  CONDITIONS 
FROM  THE  HARRISON  ADMINISTRATION. 

The  Democratic  administration  operated  under  the  McKinley 
tariff  eighteen  months — March,  1893,  to  August  28,  1894 — when  the 
Wilson  tariff  act  took  effect.  The  McKinley  tariff  proved  to  be 
a  failure  as  a  revenue  producer,  but  a  successful  breeder  of  panics 
and  a  responsive  mother  of  trusts. 

In  the  midst  of  a  panic,  facing  an  empty  treasury,  with  our 
gold  fleeing  abroad,  the  Democrats  came  into  power  March  4, 
1893,  taking  charge  of  the  government  under  the  McKinley  tariff 
and  the  Sherman  silver  law,  the  enactment  of  which  they  had 
opposed,  repudiated  and  condemned,  both  of  which  Secretary 
Foster  criticised  in  his  last  report.  From  the  wreckage,  the  old 
ship  of  state  had  to  be  rebuilt  and  order  brought  out  of  disorder. 

In  speaking  of  the  inevitable  embarrassment  of  the  Democratic 
administration  at  this  time,  Mr.  Noyes  said: 

"Probably  no  financial  administration  in  our  history  has  entered 
office  under  such  disheartening  conditions." 

The  Democrats  in  extra  session,  November  1,  1893,  partially 
repealed  the  Sherman  silver  law.  Therefore  whatever  happy 
results  followed  from  this  repeal  should  be  credited  to  the 
Democrats. 

The  income  tax,  enacted  by  the  Wilson  Tariff  Act,  similar  to 
those  enacted  by  Congress  for  nearly  a  century,  was  declared  by 


DEMOCRATS  INHERITED  CONDITIONS 


in 


the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  unconstitutional,  about 
which  the  national  Democracy  in  1896  declared: 

INCOME  TAX  PLANK. 

But  for  this  decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  there  would  be  no  deficit 
in  the  revenue  under  the  law  passed  by  a  Democratic  Congress  in 
strict  pursuance  of  the  uniform  decisions  of  that  court  for  nearly  100 
years,  that  court  having  in  that  decision  sustained  Constitutional 
objections  to  its  enactment  which  had  previously  been  overruled  by 
the  ablest  judges  who  have  ever  sat  on  that  bench.  We  declare  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  use  all  the  Constitutional  power  which 
remains  after  that  decision,  or  which  may  come  from  its  reversal  by 
the  court  as  it  may  hereafter  be  constituted,  so  that  the  burdens 
of  taxation  may  be  equally  and  impartially  laid,  to  the  end  that 
wealth  may  bear  its  due  proportion  of  the  expense  of  the  Government. 


Population  and  Wealth  of  United 

From  Commerce  and  Finance, 

Population. 

1850 23,191,876 

1860 31,443,321 

1870 38,558,371 

1880 50,155,783 

1890 62,622,250 

1900 76,303,387 


States   (Official). 
April,  1904. 

Wealth.     Per  Capita. 


$7,135,780,000 
16,159,616,000 
30,068,518,000 
42,642,000,000 
65,037,091,000 
=$94,300,000,000 


$307.69 

513.93 

779.83 

850.20 

1,038.57 

$1,235.86 


The  following  official  table  shows  the  annual  income  tax  col- 
lected from  1863  to  1873,  when  our  taxable  wealth  was  much  less 
than  in  1894  or  in  1906: 

INCOME  TAX— REVENUE   FROM. 

Treasury  Department,  Office  of  the  Secretary. 

Washington,  D.  C,  December  18,  1893. 

Sir — I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  the  statement  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  showing  the  amount  of  tax 
derived  from  income  from  all  sources,  under  the  income-tax  law  of 
1862,  for  the  years  1863  to  1873  inclusive,  called  for  in  Senate 
resolution  of  the  11th  instant. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  G.  Carlisle,  Secretary. 
Hon.  Adlai  E.  Stevenson, 

President  of  the  United  States  Senate. 


Recapitulation  by  Years. 


Tears. 


1863. 
1864. 
1865. 
1866. 
1867. 
1868. 
1869. 
1870. 
1871. 
1872. 
1873. 


From  per- 

From corpor- 

sonal income. 

ations. 

$455,741.26 

$1,589,935.28 

14,799,313.88 

3,656,244 .  79 

20,400,671.69 

8,519,527.00 

60,547,882.43 

8,716,881.91 

57,040,640.67 

7,943,796.69 

32,027,610.78 

8,384,426.18 

25,025,068.86 

9,204,824.46 

27,115,046.11 

9,551,301.09 

14,434,949.39 

3,940,438.81 

8,416,685.87 

5,725,611.26 

3,927,252.76 

1,017,517.14 

From  prop- 
erty In  U.  S. 
owned  by 
any  citizen 
res  ding 
abroad  and 
interest  on 
U.  S.  securi- 
ties. 


From  in- 
come of  1863. 
special  duty 
on. 


$134,048.44 
303,326.93 


$452,550.09 


Total...     $264,190,863.70     $68,250,504.61     $437,375.37     $452,550.09 
(♦Republican  Campaign,  1904,  p.  442.) 


114 


DEMOCRATS   INHERITED    CONDITIONS. 


Statement  Showing  Receipts  from  Income  Tax,  Etc. 

From   salar- 
Years.  Total.  jfLers  ^4nd        Grand  total. 

employes. 

1863 $2,045,676.54  $696,181.71  $2,741,858.25 

1864 18,589,607.11  1,705,124.63  20,294,731.74 

1865 29,223,525.62  2,826,491.82  32,050,017.44 

1866 69,717,314.43  3,717,394.69  73,434,709.12 

1867 64,984,437.36  1,029,991.98  66,014,429.34 

1868 40,412,036.96  1,043,561.40  41,455,598.36 

1869 34,229,893 .  32  561,962 .  52  31,791,855 .  84 

1870 36,666,347.20  1,109,526.42  37,775,873.62 

1871 18,375,388.20  787,262.55  19,162,650.75 

1872 14,142,297.13  294,564.65  14,436,861.78 

1873 4,944,769.90  117,541.72  5,062,311.62 

Total $333,331,293 .  77     $13,889,604 .  09     $347,229,897 .  86 

The  Republicans  have  stubbornly  refused,  over  the  protest  of 
the  Democrats,  to  take  a  single  step  towards  the  re-enactment  of 
an  income  tax,  because  if  justice  were  done  it  would  inevitably 
compel  the  reduction  of  the  exorbitant  and  oppressive  tariff  rates 
that  foster  and  shelter  the  monopolies,  combinations  and  trusts 
that  perpetuate  the  Republican  party  in  power. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  all  these  adverse  conditions,  the  offlcial 
figures,  given  below,  show  that  our  exports  of  merchandise 
under  the  Wilson  tariff,  1897,  struck  the  Mllion  dollar  mark — 
$1,154,379,735,  while  from  October,  1892,  to  September,  1893—12 
months — our  exports  were,  under  the  McKinley  tariff,  only  $876,- 
332,434.  Here  are  the  oflScial  figures  issued  by  the  "Treasury  De- 
partment July  1,  1904,  Circular  No.  72": 

TABLE   NO.  1. 

Values  of  Imports  and  Exports  of  Merchandise  under  the  McKinlby 

Tariff  Act. 

Exports, 
Imports,     domestic  and 
foreign. 

October  1,  1890,  to  September  30,  1891 $824,716,842     $923,362,015 

October  1,  1891,  to  September  30,  1892 837,280,798       998,226,775 

October  1,  1892,  to  September  30,  1893 830,150,318       876,332,434 

October  1,  1893,  to  August  31,  1894a 603,865,896       790,706,509 

a  Eleven  months. 

TABLE    NO.  2. 

Values  of  Imports  and  Exports  of  Merchandise  under  the  Wilson 

Tariff  Act. 

Exports, 
Imports,     domestic  and 
foreign. 

September  1,  1894,  to  August  31,  1895 $759,108,416      $806,670,050 

September  1,   1895,   to  July  31,   1896 687,695,637        837,802,519 

August  1,  1896,  to  July  31,  1897 766,296,619     1.054,379,735 

TABLE  NO.  3. 

Excess  of  Exports  of  Merchandise  Aloniu  and  of  Merchandise  and 
Silver  under  McKinley  Act. 

Merchandise 
Merchandise,     and  silver. 

October  1,  1890,  to  September  30,  1891 $98,645,173     $103,537,310 

October  1,  1891,  to  September  30,  1892 160,945,977       175,091,707 

October   1,   1892,   to   September   30.   1893 46,182,116         68,672,711 

October  1,  1893,  to  August  31,  1894 186,840,613       221,327,708 


TABLE   NO.  4. 

Excess  of  Exports  of  Merchandise  Alone  and  of  Merchandise  and 
Silver  under  Wilson  Act. 

Merchandise 
Merchandise,    and  silver. 

September  1,  1894,  to  August  31,  1895 $47,561,634     $84,876,022 

September  1,  1895,  to  July  31,  1896 150,106,882     179,560,567 

August  1,  1896,  to  July  31,  1897 288,083,116     318,379,772 


DEMOCRATS    INHERITED    CONDITIONS.  115 


TABLE   NO.  5. 

Annual  Average  Excess  op  Exports  of  Merchandise  Alone. 

Under  McKinley  Act  of  1890 $123,153,470 

Under  Wilson  Act  of  1894 161,917,210 

TABLE   NO.  6. 

Annual  Average  Excess  of  Exports  of  Merchandise  and  Silver. 

Under  McKinley  Act  of  1890 $141,157,359 

Under  Wilson  Act  of  1894 194,272,120 

TABLE   NO.  7. 

The  McKinley  tariff  act  took  effect  on  the  6th  day  of  October, 
1S90. 

Receipts  from  Customs  and  Total  Receipts  from  all  Sources  under 
McKinley  Act. 

Customs.  All  sources. 

Nine  months  ending  June  30,  1891 $151,548,298.14  $280,686,613.16 

Fiscal   year   ending   June   30,    1892 177,452,964.15        354,937,784.24 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30,   1893 203,355,016.73        385,819,628.78 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1894 131,818,530.62        297,722,019.25 

Months  of  July  and  August,  1894 20,673,479.59  76,351,447.54 

Total $684,848,289.23   $1,395,517,492.97 

TABLE  NO.  8. 
The  Wilson  tariff  act  took  effect  on  the  28th  day  of  August,  1894. 

Receipts  from  Customs  and  Total  Receipts  from  all  Sources  under 

Wilson  Act. 

Customs.  All  sources. 

Ten  months  ending  June  30,1895 $131,485,137.86  $237,038,627.57 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1896 160,021,751.67  326,976,200.38 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1897 176,554,126.65  347,721,705.16 

Month  of  July,   1897 16,966,801.65  39,027,364.25 

Total $485,027,817.83  $950,763,897.36 

The  Dingley  tariff  act  took  effect  on  the  24th  day  of  July,  1897. 

The  average  monthly  receipts  from  customs  only,  Wilson  tariff, 
during  the  last  thirteen  months  of  its  operation  were  $14,886,- 
225.25,  while  for  the  fourteen  months  under  and  preceding  the 
repeal  of  the  McKinley  tariff  the  average  monthly  receipts  from 
customs  only  were  $10,892,286.44. 

The  total  customs  receipts  only  for  the  two  periods  were: 

Wilson  tariff  (13  months) $193,520,928.30 

McKinley  tariff   ( 14  months) 152,492,410.21 

These  figures  are  based  on  tables  7  and  8. 

The  average  monthly  revenues  from  all  sources,  under  the  Mc- 
Kinley tariff,  fiscal  year  1894,  were  $24,810,168.27,  while  under  the 
Wilson  Act,  fiscal  year  1897,  and  July  following — thirteen 
months — the  average  monthly  revenues  from  all  sources  were 
$29,749,928.41,  or  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1897— twelve 
months— $28,976,808.76.    These  figures  are  based  on  tables  7  and  8. 


116 


TARIFF  ON  IRON  AND  STEEL. 


TARIFF  ON  IRON  AND  STEEL 

A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  TARIFF  LAW  OF  1893  WITH  THAT 

OF  1890. 

One  of  the  Republican  arguments  in  favor  of  protectionism  is 
that  exports  have  always  increased  under  a  protective  tariff  and 
decreased  under  a  tariff  for  revenue.  This  claim  is  sophistical. 
It  is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts.  During  the  four  years'  life  of 
tLe  Wilson  tariff  the  exports  of  iron  and  manufactures  thereof, 
exclusive  of  iron  ore,  exceeded  the  exports  of  the  four  preceding 
years  under  the  McKinley  protective  tariff  by  $128,239,783. 

Table  showing  imports  and  exports  of  iron  and  manufactures 
thereof,  exclusive  of  iron  ore,  for  the  four  years,  1893-1896  inclu- 
L-ive,  under  the  Wilson  Tariff. 


Year, 

Imports. 

Exports. 

Excess  of 
Imports 

over 
Exports. 

Excess  of 
Exports 

over 
Imports. 

1893     , 

34,937,974 

30,106,482 
29,220,264 
32,000,989 
41,160,877 

4,831,492 

1894     

20,925,967 

8,294,297 

8,952,474 

15,822,774 

1895     

23,048,515 

::::::::::: 

1896     

25,338,103 

Total    

104,250,559  132,488,612 

4,831,492 
Balance 

33,069,545 
28,238,053 

4,831,492 

In  the  preceding  4-year  period  (protective  tariff),  1889-1892  in- 
clusive, we  imported  a  total  of  $166,629,767  and  exported  only 
$104,288,829,  leaving  an  excess  of  imports  over  exports  to  the 
amount  of  $62,340,938,  as  compared  with  an  increase  of  exports 
over  imports  under  the  Wilson  tariff  amounting  to  $28,238,053. 

In  1880,  under  a  Republican  protective  tariff,  we  imported  $71,- 
266,699  and  exported  only  $14,716,524  worth  of  goods  of  the  same 
class.  In  1891,  two  years  before  the  Wilson  bill  was  passed, 
we  imported  $53,544,372  and  exported  only  $28,909,614.  In  these 
two  years,  1880  and  1891,  of  high  protection  we  exported  a  total 
of  iron  products  reaching  only  $43,626,138,  or  $88,862,474  less 
than  our  exports  of  the  same  class  of  goods  during  the  life  of  the 
Wilson  tariff. 

It  is  true  that  our  iron  industry  has  developed  rapidly  under 
impulse  of  high  protection,  which  gives  such  enormous  profits  on 
cai)ital  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel.  But  where 
do  those  profits  come  from?  Surely,  they  come  out  of  the  pockets 
of  people  who  use  iron  and  steel  in  this  country  more  than  they 
can  or  do  gold;  and  they  constitute,  to  the  extent  of  the  tariff 
tax,  just  so  much  taken  from  the  people  and  given  to  the  manu- 
facturer. For  while  the  tax  on  imports  creates  a  monopoly  for 
the  manufacturer,  the  government  gets  only  the  amount  paid  on 
iron  and  steel  actually  imported,  while  the  manufacturer — the 
great  Steel  Trust — gets  an  equal  amount  pro  rata  on  all  the 
domestic  consumption.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Carnegies, 
Fricks,  Schwabs,  Thaws,  Corey s,  Hartjes  and  the  rest  of  the  Coke 


TARIFF  ON  IRON  AND  STEEL.  117 

and  Steel  magnates  have  reaped  such  enormous  fortunes  from 
the  American  people.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  they  made  the 
Dingley  tariff  of  1897,  nearly  prohibitive,  and  caused  imports  to 
fall  off  as  compared  with  previous  years. 

Those  who  wish  to  retain  this  tariff  do  so  either  because  they 
are  deceived  by  false  pretenses,  or  else  because  they  are  partici- 
pating in  the  plunder.  The  Steel  Trust,  fortified  behind  this  pro- 
tectionism, plunders  the  American  people  and  sells  its  products 
cheaper  abroad  than  at  home.  The  greater  its  exports  under  such 
circumstances  the  worse  for  our  own  people.  See  further  re- 
marks herein  where  it  is  clearly  proven  that  the  Steel  Trust  sells 
its  products  to  foreigners  cheaper  than  to  American  consumers. 

SOME    FACTS  ABOUT   THE   SO-CALLED   PANIC   OF   1893. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Shaw  devoted  considerable  attention  to 
the  tariff  question  in  an  address  delivered  at  St.  Louis.  Mr.  Shaw 
reminded  his  hearers  of  the  hard  times  of  1893-4,  and  he  sought  to 
impress  upon  their  minds  the  idea  that  tariff  legislation  by  a  Demo- 
cratic Congress — the  Wilson  bill — Was  responsible  for  the  hard  times 
of  tnat  period. 

It  will  be  just  as  well  to  keep  history  straight.  The  truth  is  that 
every  panic  since  the  civil  war  originated  under  Republican  rule  and 
developed  under  Republican  legislation. 

The  great  panic  which  gave  "Black  Friday"  to  history  occurred  dur- 
ing the  month  of  September,  1869,  when  the  Republican  party  was  in 
power. 

The  great  panic  marked  by  the  failure  of  Jay  Cooke  &  Co.,  occurred 
in  September,  1873.  Then  the  Republican  party  was  in  power  and 
eleven  months  prior  to  the  beginning  of  that  panic  that  party  had 
been  re-elected  to  power. 

The  hard  times  to  which  Secretary  Shaw  refers  did  not  begin  in 
1894;  they  began  long  prior  to  that  year  and,  indeed,  long  prior  to 
the  presidential  election  of  1892;  and  it  is  a  fact,  although  Republican 
orators  and  Republican  organs  try  to  forget  it,  that  the  so-called 
panic  of  1893  began  and  played  its  greatest  havoc  under  that  famous 
tariff  law  known  as  the  McKinley  bill. 

It  may  be  well  for  Commoner  readers  to  keep  readily  at  hand  some 
of  the  facts  and  figures  relating  to  this  question. 

The  Republican  party  was  restored  to  power  March  4,  1889. 

The  McKinley  tariff  bill  became  a  law  October  6,  1890,  and  re- 
mained in  effect  until  August  27,  1894. 

The  Wilson  tariff  law,  enacted  by  a  Democratic  Congress,  went  into 
effect  August  27,  1894. 

If  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  Republican  cam- 
paign text-book  for  1904,  pages  125,  126  and  127  he  will  find  consider- 
able space  devoted  to  a  statement  of  business  disasters  from  July  18, 
1893,  until  November  13,  1894.  The  Republican  managers  expected 
their  readers  to  remember  that  the  Cleveland  administration  was  in- 
augurated March  4,  1893,  and  that  all  these  disasters  occurred  under 
Democratic  administration;  but  they  expected  their  readers  to  forget 
that  the  Republican  tariff  law  was  in  force  up  to  August  27,  1894,  or 
covering  more  than  twelve  months  of  the  sixteen  months*  period  of 
business  disasters  as  described  by  the  Republican  text-book. 

In  their  references  to  the  panic  of  1893  Republican  orators  and  organs 
habitually  overlook  the  date  when  the  McKinley  law  ceased  and  the 
Wilson  law  went  into  effect.  But  when  in  their  tariff  discussions  they 
are  required  to  face  the  fact  that  that  panic  played  it*  greatest  havoc 
during  the  life  of  the  Republican  tariff  law  they  answer  that  it  was 
the  anticipation  of  tariff  legislation  growing  out  of  Democratic  victory 
in  1892  which  brought  on  these  business  disasters.  For  this  reason  in 
their  list  of  business  disasters  they  place  July  18,  1893,  as  marking 
the  beginning  of  that  great  panic. 


118  TARIFF    ON    IRON    AND    STEEL, 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  McKinley  tariff  bill  became  a  law 
October  6,  1890,  and  that  the  first  indications  of  the  so-called  panic  of 
1893-4  were  given  November  11,  1890,  A  LITTLE  MORE  THAN 
THIRTY  DAYS  AFTER  THE  McKINLEY  TARIFF  BILL  BECAME 
A  LAW.     From  that  date  the  panic  raged. 

The  Harrison  administration  was  inaugurated  March  4,  1889,  and 
when  the  first  indications  of  this  panic  were  given  President  Harrison 
had  not  exhausted  the  half  of  the  term  for  which  he  was  elected.  It 
is  admitted  by  everyone  familiar  with  the  facts  that  President  Harri- 
son's administration  had  plates  prepared  for  the  bonds  and  Mr.  Har- 
rison's Secretary  of  the  Treasury  made  a  visit  to  New  York  for  the 
purpose  of  negotiating  the  bond  deal.  He  was  wired  by  Mr.  Harrison 
to  return  to  Washington.  Mr.  Harrison  said  that  he  had  concluded 
not  to  have  any  bond  issues  under  his  administration,  and  in  order  to 
avoid  the  stigma  the  Harrison  administration  warded  off  the  bond 
issue  and  unloaded  it  on  the  incoming  Cleveland  administration. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  point  out  that  when  the  Democratic 
administration  surrendered  the  reins  of  government,  March  4,  1889, 
there  was  in  the  federal  treasury  the  largest  surplus  in  history.  When 
the  Republican  party  went  out  of  power,  March  4,  1893,  there  was  a 
large  deficit,  and  the  incoming  administration  was  finally  persuaded 
to  make  the  bond  issues  which  its  Republican  predecessor  had  at  one 
time  thought  to  be  necessary,  but  had  skilfully  avoided. 

The  claim  that  the  business  disasters  of  the  period  referred  to  were 
due  to  the  popular  fear  of  tariff  legislation  to  be  enacted  by  Democrats 
is,  as  has  been  said,  met  by  the  fact  that  this  panic  began  two  years, 
prior  to  the  presidential  election  day  of  1892.  The  following  will 
serve  as  reminders  on  this  point: 

November  11,  1890,  the  reports  showed  financial  distress  in  New 
York.  The  New  York  Clearing  House  Association  voted  its  certificates 
to  banks  in  need  of  assistance. 

The  Boston  Clearing  House  Association  did  the  same  thing  Novem- 
ber. 17  Barker  Bros.  &  Co.,  big  bankers  in  Philadelphia,  suspended  at 
that  time,  with  liabilities  placed  at  $5,000,000. 

November  19,  1890,  there  was  a  run  on  the  Citizens'  Savings  Bank 
of  New  York,  and  a  receiver  was  appointed  for  the  North  River  Bank. 

November  22,  1890,  the  United  Rolling  Stock  Company  of  Chicagp 
assigned,  with  liabilities  at  $6,851,000. 

November  28,  1890,  B.  K,  Jamieson  &  Co.,  the  Philadelphia  bankers, 
failed,  with  liabilities  at  $2,000,000. 

December  6,  1890,  the  Oliver  Iron  and  Steel  Mills  of  Pittsburg  shut 
down,  discharging  2,000  employes.  On  the  same  date  the  cotton  firm 
of  Myer  &  Co.,  of  New  Orleans,  failed,  with  liabilities  at  $2,000,000. 

January  3,  1891,  the  Scottdale  Rolling  Mills  and  Pike  Works  and 
the  Charlotte  Furnace  and  Coke  Works  in  Pennsylvania  closed,  throw- 
ing 10,000  employes  out  of  work. 

January  18,  1891,  the  American  National  Bank  at  Kansas  City 
suspended,  with  liabilities  at  $2,250,000. 

May  8,  1891,  the  Spring  Garden  National  Bank  at  Philadelphia 
closed  its  doors,  and  the  Pennsylvania  Safe  Deposit  and  Trust  Com- 
pany m^Tde  an  assignment. 

The  Homestead  strike  and  other  strikes  during  1892,  and  prior  to 
election  day,  are  well  remembered  by  the  people. 

—The  Commoner,  May  11,  1906. 


CORRUPTION  AND  SCANDALS.  119 


REPUBLICAN    CORRUPTION    AND    LIFE    INSURANCE 
SCANDAL— THE   CORTELYOU    SCANDAL- 
DEPARTMENT  OF  COMMERCE 
AND  LABOR. 

On  the  afternoon  of  October  24,  1904,  during  the  closing  days 
of  the  Presidential  campaign.  Judge  Parker  was  visited  at  his 
home,  Rosemount,  by  a  delegation  comprising  several  political 
clubs  which  were  then  aiding  in  his  campaign  for  the  Presidency. 
Standing  upon  the  veranda  of  his  home,  Judge  Parker  addressed 
them  upon  the  issues  of  the  campaign,  and,  among  other  questions 
discussed,  spoke  as  follows: 

"Many  years  have  passed  since  my  active  participation  in  politics. 
In  the  meantime  a  startling  change  has  taken  place  in  the  methods  of 
conducting  campaigns — a  change  not  for  the  better,  but  for  the  worse; 
a  change  that  has  introduced  debasing  and  corrupt  methods,  which 
threaten  the  integrity  of  our  government,  leaving  it  perhaps  a  repub- 
lic in  form,  but  not  a  republic  in  substance — no  longer  a  government 
of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people,  but  a  government  whose 
officers  are  practically  chosen  by  a  handful  of  corporate  managers 
who  levy  upon  the  assets  of  the  stockholders  whom  they  represent 
such  sums  of  money  as  they  deem  requisite  to  place  the  conduct  of 
the  government  in  such  hands  as  they  consider  best  for  their  private 
interests.     *     *     * 

"Some  of  the  enterprises  which  have  unduly  thrived  through  favor- 
itism, and  which  have  been  permitted  by  statute  to  indirectly  levy 
tribute  upon  the  people,  have,  in  the  course  of  time  become  so  rich  and 
strong  that  they  can  and  do  contribute  vast  sums,  when  it  is  made 
clear  that  it  will  advantage  them,  and  they  contribute  upon  the  prom- 
ise, direct  or  implied,  that  they  shall  be  permitted  to  continue  to  tax 
the  people  for  their  own  benefit. 

"Under  such  promises  contributions  have  been  made  not  infrequently 
in  such  large  measure  as  to  induce  and  procure  colonization,  repeating 
and  bribery  in  doubtful  States. 

"The  excessively  protected  interests  which  formerly  poured  out  their 
treasure  in  order  to  continue  existing  and  procure  the  passage  of  new 
laws  permitting  further  accumulation,  have  been  joined  by  the  com- 
binations popularly  called  trusts.    Their  plan  is  to  perpetuate  the 

present  administration. 

^  «  *  ♦  *  »  ♦ 

"A  corporation  will  subscribe  to  a  political  party  only  because  the 
corporation  expects  that  party,  through  its  control  of  public  officers, 
executive  or  legislative,  to  do  something  for  the  benefit'  of  the  cor- 
poration, or  to  refrain  from  doing  something  to  its  injury.  No  other 
motive  can  be  imagined.  In  the  nature  of  things,  no  other  motive 
can  exist. 

"The  relations  established  mean  the  expectation,  if  not  the  agree- 
ment, actual  or  implied,  that  government  action  is  to  be  influenced  by 
and  for  corporation  interests.  No  sophistry  can  give  any  other  aspect 
to  the  transaction  in  the  minds  of  reasonable  men." 

AND  AGAIN,  ON  THE  NIGHT  OF  OCTOBER  31,  1904,  JUDGE 
PARKER  ADDRESSED  A  MASS-MEETING  IN  MADISON 
SQUARE  GARDEN,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  AND  IN  DISCUSSING 
THIS  SAME  QUESTION,  SAID: 

"In  the  earlier  utterance,  I  nave  referred  in  detail  to  what  is  no- 
toriously going  on  in  the  matter  of  the  collection  of  funds  by  the  Re- 


120  CORRVPTION  A^'D  SCANDALS. 

publican  party  for  the  campaign.  Now,  I  know,  as  you  know,  that 
money  is  required  in  order  to  defray  the  expenses  of  a  campaign. 
Under  right  conditions  its  collection  and  expenditure  are  equally 
legitimate.  But  the  spectacle  of  demanding  campaign  funds  now  pre- 
sented to  this  country  is,  when  rightly  regarded,  of  a  character  to 
shock  the  moral  sense. 

"WE  SHALL  DO  WELL  TO  PAUSE  FOR  A  MOMElST  TO  ASK 
WHITHER  WE  ARE  DRIFTING  IN  OUR  INDIFFERENCE  TO 
RIGHT  STANDARDS,  AND  TO  OUR  OLD-FASHIONED  SENSE  OF 
PROPRIETY  IN  SUCH  MATTERS. 

"Congress  creates  a  new  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  Of 
that  department  the  President  of  the  United  States  appoints  a  Sec- 
retary. That  Secretary  was  his  private  Secreary.  Within  the  de- 
partment provision  is  made  for  the  collection,  from  large  corporations, 
including  the  .so-called  tusts,  of  information  which,  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  President  for  public  or  private  use, 
as  he  may  direct.  By  grace  of  the  same  Executive  this  Secretary, 
through  whose  department  this  information  is  collected,  becomes 
Chairman  of  the  Republican  National  Committee.  His  chief  duty  it 
has  been,  and  still  is,  to  collect  funds  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
election  of  the  President.  AND  IT  IS  NOW  NOTORIOUS  THAT 
THERE  HAS  RESULTED  FROM  THIS  ORGANIZED  IMPOR- 
TUNITY—W^HATEVER  MAY  BE  THE  PRECISE  WAY  IN  WHICH 
IT  IS  MADE  EFFECTIVE— AN  OVERFLOWING  TREASURY  TO 
THE  COMMITTEE,  OF  WHICH  BOAST  IS  OPENLY  AND  CON- 
TINUALLY MADE.  ALTHOUGH  THIS  MAY  BE  SATISFACTORY 
TO  THE  CONSCIENCE  OF  REPUBLICAN  LEADERS,  IT  MUST,  I 
FIRMLY  BELIEVE,  BE  CONDEMNED  Ag  NOTHING  SHORT  OF 
SCANDALOUS,  NOT  ALONE  BY  MYSELF  OR  THE  DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY,  BUT  BY  THE  AMERICAN  PEOPLE  AS  WELL. 

"It  is  said  by  Mr.  Hay  that  the  character  of  Mr.  Lincoln  furniphes 
the  standard  for  Mr.  Roosevelt  in  his  conduct  as  President.  I  do  not 
have  to  pause  to  hear  you  thundering  'No!'  when  I  ask,  'Would  Lin- 
coln have  done  or  permitted  this  to  be  done?'  The  whole  performance 
is  a  shameless  exhibition  of  a  willingness  to  make  compromise  with 
decency  in  order  that  sums  of  money  may  be  gathered  together  suffi- 
ciently vast  to  justify  the  insolent  boast,  even  now,  that  there  is  no 
question  as  to  the  success  which,  by  such  a  course,  the  Republican 
managers  so  confidently  predict.  The  performance  is  entitled  only  to 
the  credit  that  it  in  no  sense  partakes  of  hypocrisy.  It  is  as  bold  as 
it  is  improper  and  indefensible." 

Not  until  November  4, 1904,  twelve  days  after  the  first  utterance 
of  Judge  Parker  on  this  question,  did  President  Roosevelt  deign 
to  publicly  take  cognizance  of  the  charges  made  by  Judge  Parker, 
at  which  time  he  gave  out  a  public  statement,  in  which  he  said: 


"But  there  is  not  one  particle  of  truth  in  the  statement  as  regards 
anything  that  has  gone  on  in  the  management  of  the  Republican  cam- 
paign. Mr.  Parker's  accusations  against  Mr.  Cortelyou  and  me  are 
monstrous.  If  true,  they  would  brand  both  of  us  forever  with  infamy ; 
and,  inasmuch  as  they  are  false,  heavy  must  be  the  condemnation  of 
the  man  making  them. 

*  *  »  *  *  * 

"The  assertion  that  Mr.  Cortelyou  had  any  knowledge  gained  while 
in  any  official  position  whereby  he  was  enabled  to  secure,  and  did  se- 
cure, any  contributions  from  any  corporation  is  a  falsehood.  The  as- 
sertion that  there  has  been  any  blackmail,  direct  or  indirect,  by  Mr. 
Cortelyou  or  by  me,  is  a  falsehood. 

"The  assertion  that  there  has  been  made  in  my  behalf  and  by  my 
authority  by  Mr.  Cortelyou,  or  by  anyone  else,  any  pledge  or  promise, 
or  that  there  has  been  any  understanding  as  to  future  immunities 
or  benefits,  in  recognition  of  any  contribution  from  any  source,  is  a 
wicked  falsehood." 


CORRUPTION  AND  SCANDALS.  121 

ON  THE  NIGHT  OF  NOVEMBER  5,  1904,  JUDGE  PARKER 
ADDRESSED  A  LARGE  AUDIENCE  IN  BROOKLYN,  AND 
TOOK  OCCASION  TO  REPLY  TO  PRESIDENT  ROOSEVELT'S 
STATEMENT.     HE  SAID,  IN  PART: 

"WHETHER  THERE  WERE  REAL  DIFFICULTIES  BETWEEN 
THESE  GREAT  POWERS  AND  THE  ADMINISTRATION,  DIFFI- 
CULTIES WHICH  HAVE  SINCE  BEEN  SETTLED  TO  THE  SATIS- 
FACTION OF  ALL  PARTIES  CONCERNED,  OR  WHETHER 
THERE  WERE  NO  DIFFICULTIES  TO  BE  COMPROMISED  AND 
ADJUSTED,  THEIR  ACTION  BEING  BUT  A  PLAY  TO  DECEIVE 
THE  VOTERS,  THE  FACT  REMAINS  THAT  THE  TRUSTS  ARE 
NOT  NOW  OPPOSED  TO  THE  CONTINUANCE  OF  THE  PRESENT 
ADMINISTRATION.  ON  THE  CONTRARY,  IT  IS  COMMON 
KNOWLEDGE  THAT  THEY  HAVE  DETERMINED  TO  FURNISH 
SUCH  A  SUM  OF  MONEY  TO  THE  REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE  AS  IT  IS  HOPED  WILL  SECURE  THE  'FLOATERS' 
IN  THE  DOUBTFUL  STATES  FOR  THE  REPUBLICAN  TICKET. 

«•  *  %  ■:;•  *  ■» 

"HE  SHUT  HIS  EYES  TO  WHAT  WAS  GOING  ON,  AND  SINCE 
THAT  TIME  THERE  HAS  BEEN  THE  FREQUENT  MEETING  OF 
THE  TRUST  MAGNATES,  THE  MONEYS  HAVE  BEEN  POURING 
INTO  THE  TREASURY  ALL  THE  MORE  FREELY  AND  ALL  THE 
MORE  PLENTIFULLY  BECAUSE  OF  THE  ATTITUDE  TAKEN 
BY  ME,  AND  WHICH,  IT  IS  TRUE,  I  HAVE  ENFORCED  FROM 
DAY  TO  DAY.  THE  PRESIDENT  DOES  NOT  DENY  THESE  CON- 
TRIBUTIONS NOW. 

*  *  *  ,  *  «  * 

"He  is  in  a  position  to  know  what  contributions  have  been  made  to 
the  Republican  National  Committee  by  the  trusts;  if  there  have  been 
no  trust  contributions  he  could  easily  have  said  so.  He  did  not  say  so. 
He  cannot  say  so.  He  has  waited  until  the  closing  hour  of  the  cam- 
paign to  make  easier  the  pretense  of  an  answer.  But  it  is  not  an  an- 
swer. It  is  a  confession  tuith  a  plea  in  avoidance  addressed  to  a 
kindly  and  generous  people. 

"If  there  was  any  doubt  of  the  source  of  this  great  campaign  fund, 
it  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  suspicion,  for  Mr.  Elihu  Root,  the  former 
Secretary  of  War,  frankly  admitted  last  night  that  trusts  and  cor- 
porations were  heavy  contributors.  He  denied  only  that  the  total 
amount  thus  acquired  or  utilized  was  as  large  as  in  previous  years. 
Moreover,  the  Republican  candidate  himself  denies  only  that  definite 
immunity  from  prosecution  has  been  promised  trusts  for  their  assist- 
ance. He  declares  that  he  is  merely  to  give  them  a  'square  deal,'  as 
the  term  may  be  interpreted  not  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  but  by  him- 
self. It  is  plain  that  when  the  time  shall  come  to  determine  what  'a 
square  deal'  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the 
contributing  trusts  really  is,  the  beneficiary  of  the  generosity  of  the 
latter  must  either  recognize  their  service  or  confess  himself  guilty  of 
^ase  ingratitude." 

JUDGE  PARKER  RECEIVED  FROM  ONE  WHO  KNEW  THE 
NAMES  OF  THE  FEW  WHO  UNDERTOOK  TO  UNDERWRITE 
THE  CAMPAIGN,  BUT  THE  NAMES  WERE  GIVEN  IN  CONFI- 
DENCE, AND  HE  RESPECTED  THAT  CONFIDENCE.  THE 
CHARGE  WAS  MADE  BY  HIM,  NOT  AT  ALL  WITH  THE  IDEA 
THAT  IT  WOULD  INFLUENCE  THE  RESULT,  BUT  BECAUSE 
HE  BELIEVED  THAT  SUCH  PRACTICES  MUST  END  OR  THE 
REPUBLIC  WILL  SOON  BE  ONE  IN  NAME  ONLY.  THAT 
THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  MOMENT  TO  AROUSE  PUBLIC 
INTEREST  WAS  BEFORE  THE  CAMPAIGN  CLOSED,  NOT 
AFTERWARD,  WHEN  IT  COULD  BE  CHARGED  THAT  THE 
STING  OF  DEFEAT  WAS  HIS  MOTIVE.  SUCH  A  PUBLIC 
INTEREST    AS    SHOULD    BRING    ABOUT    INVESTIGATION 


122  CORRUPTION  AND  8CANDALS. 

OF  THE  CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  INSURANCE  COMPANIES, 
BANKS,  TRUST  COMPANIES,  RAILROAD  COMPANIES  AND 
GIANT-PROTECTED  INTERESTS,  WAS  HIS  AIM. 

THE   PROOF. 

On  September  20,  1905,  Mr.  John  A.  McCall,  president  of  the 
New  York  Life  Insurance  Company,  testified  before  the  Legisla- 
tive Insurance  Investigating  Committee,  and  was  examined  by 
Mr.  Charles  E.  Hughes,  counsel  for  the  committee,  regarding 
contributions  made  by  the  New  York  Life  Insurance  Company 
to  the  Republican  National  Committee  during  the  Presidential 
campaign  of  1904.  On  page  639,  volume  1,  of  the  testimony  and 
proceedings  had  before  that  committee,  will  be  found  the  follow- 
ing questions  and  answers,  the  same  being  questions  asked  by 
Mr.  Hughes,  and  answers  given  to  those  questions  by  Mr.  McCall: 

"Q.  In  connection  with  another  matter  which  has  received  a  good 
deal  of  attention,  to  wit:  campaign  contributions.  The  other  day 
there  was  an  entry  shown  of  some  $48,000  paid  to  Mr.  Bliss  for  the 
Republican  National  Committee  last  fall.  You  had. knowledge  of  that 
payment  ? 

"A.     I  had  full  .knowledge  of  it. 

"Q.     And  you  approved  it  ? 

"A.     I  approved  of  it,  and  do  now." 

Again,  on  October  10,  1905,  Dr.  Walter  R.  Gillette,  vice-president 
of  the  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  testifying  before  the 
same  committee,  examined  by  Mr.  Hughes,  gave  the  following 
testimony: 

"Q.  \Vell,  do  you  happen  to  know  what  contributions  to  any 
campaign  funds  of  any  party  was  made  last  year  out  of  the  moneys 
of  the  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company? 

"A.     Yes.  - 

"Q.     Please  state  what  you  know  on  that  subject  ? 

"A.  We  made  a  contribution  to  the  National  Republican  Com- 
mittee. 

"Q.     Of  how  much  ? 

"A.     I  think  it  was — I  think  it  was  about  $40,000." 

This  testimony  may  be  found  upon  pages  1351  and  1352,  volume 
2,  of  the  official  proceedings  had  before  the  same  committee.  The 
amount  of  the  contribution,  however,  was  subsequently  proven 
to  be  $50,000. 

*0n  November  14,  1905,  Mr.  James  H.  Hyde,  vice-president  of 
the  Equitable  Life  Assurance  Society,  testified  before  the  same 
committee  in  regard  to  campaign  contributions  made  by  his 
company.  His  testimony  regarding  this  question  may  be  found 
on  page  2219  of  the  official  report  of  proceedings,  volume  3.  He 
testified  in  part  as  follows: 

"     *     *     *     *     The  third  purpose  was  political  contributions. 
"Q.     And  what  were  they,  so  far  as  you  were  informed  of  them  ? 
"A.     I  know  of  only  one  of  those,  whicli  was  for  the  last  Presidential 
campaign. 

"Q.     In  what  amount? 
"A.     Of  $25,000. 


CORRUPTION  AND  SCANDALS.  123 

"Q.     And  to  whom  made? 

"A.     Made  to  Mr.  Bliss  at  his  request  through  Mr.  Frick. 

"Q.     How  did  you  become  aware  of  the  contribution? 

"A.  Mr.  Frick  asked  me  for  it,  and  I  asked  Mr.  Alexander,  and 
Mr.  Alexander  approved  of  the  contribution. 

"Q.  Upon  what  grounds  did  he  suggest  that^such  a  contribution 
should  be  made  by  the  Equitable  ? 

"A.  He  suggested  that  it  was  to  the  best  interests  to  the  Equitable 
and  the  best  protection  of  the  Society's  assets  that  the  Republican 
party  should  be  re-elected  and  kept  in  power. 

"Q.  Was  any  mention  made  by  him  of  an  earlier  contribution 
made  by  the  Society? 

"A.  I  have  since  learned  that  a  contribution  was  made  in  the 
summer  in  my  absence  which  I  had  nothing  to  do  with. 

"Q.  An  amount  in  addition  to  the  amount  you  have  previously 
stated  ? 

"A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.     Do  you  know  the  amount  ? 

"A.     I  have  since  learned  the  amount  was  $25,000. 

"Q.     That  made  a  total  of  $50,000  ? 

"A.     Yes,  sir." 

WHAT  THE  SEQUEL   PROVES. 


The  report  of  the  Armstrong  committee  of  the  New  York  legis- 
lature, published  since  Mr.  Roosevelt  made  these  sweeping  and 
a'ttparently  impassioned,  but  really  crafty,  denials,  proves  that 
Parker  spoke  the  truth,  and  that  Roosevelt  was  mistaken  when 
he  said  the  charge  was  "unqualifiedly  and  atrociously  false."  A 
Republican  member  of  Congress,  even  from  Pennsylvania,  Mr. 
Edward  Morrill,  summarized  the  matter  so  well  in  a  speech  de- 
livered in  the  House  of  Representatives,  December  15,  1905  (Con- 
gressional Record,  December  21,  1905),  that  some  of  his  remarks 
are  incorporated  herewith.    Mr.  Morrill  said: 

"As  it  is,  nobody  can  feel  safe,  because  nobody  knows  what  these 
giants  are  doing.  The  reports  which  they  have  made  to  the  State  au- 
thorities (Republican  officials)  have  been  shown  to  be  false,  and  the 
reports  of  the  insurance  superintendents  are  clearly  worthless  or 
worse.  The  Equitable  Life  made  its  own  attorney,  a  gentleman  named 
Pierce,  State  superintendent  of  insurance.  The  three  great  com- 
panies have  combined  in  order  to  support  a  corrupt  lobby  at  Albany. 
They  have  been  giving  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  to  such  men 
as  Andrew  Hamilton,  A.  C.  Fields,  W.  S.  Thummel  and  other  lobbyists. 
The  Equitable,  according  to  the  testimony,  has  paid  $10,000  a  year  for 
a  long  time  to  Senator  Piatt  (Republican)  for  use  in  elections.  The 
Mutual  has  on  several  occasions  paid  $10,000  to  Senator  Piatt  for  the 
same  purposes.  In  the  campaigns  of  1896,  1900  and  1904  the  Mutual, 
the  Equitable,  and  New  York  Life,  the  Metropolitan,  and  the  Pruden- 
tial contributed  large  sums  to  the  Republican  National  Committee. 
The  testimony  of  Messrs.  Thummel,  Perkins,  McCall,  Olyphant,  Hege- 
man,  Hon.  Thomas  C.  Piatt,  Hon.  John  F.  Dryden  and  Hon.  Chauncey 
M.  Depew  (Republican)  discloses  these  facts. 

''These  payments  wei'e  not  recorded  in  the  hooks  of  the  insurance 
companies.  Neither  were  they  reported  to  the  authorities  of  any 
State  in  the  sworn  reports  of  these  companies.  Mr.  Richard  A.  Mc- 
Curdy  swore  that  if  any  contribution  had  been  made  by  the  Mutual  to 
any  New  York  State  campaign  committee  he  knew  nothing  about  it. 
Senator  Piatt  in  his  own  testimony  contradicted  this  statement.  Con- 
cerning such  contributions,  Senator  Piatt  said  that  he  had  received  as 
contributions  to  the  Republican  State  committee's  campaign  fund  the 
sum  of  $10,000  a  year  for  a  period  of  ten  or  fifteen  years  from  the 
Equitable  Life  Assurarce  Society.     During  the  same  period  he  received 


124  CORRUPTION  AND  SCANDALS. 

$10,000  a  year  for  a  number  of  years,  but  not  every  year,  from  the 
Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company.  The  Senator  explained  that  the 
contributions  of  the  Equitable  and  the  Mutual  had  always  been  sent 
him  in  cash  by  a  messenger.  When  asked  if  he  had  ever  solicited 
these  contributions  he  said  that  he  had  not,  but  had  talked  with 
President  McCurdy,  of  the  Mutual,  about  funds. 

"On  this  point  the  questions  by  Mr.  Hughes  and  the  answers  by 
Senator  Piatt  were  as  follows: 

"  *Q.  How  did  it  happen  that  the  Mutual  Life  contributed  the 
money?  Was  it  in  pursuance  of  an  understanding  between  yourself 
and  Mr.  McCurdy? — A.  I  simply  asked  him  at  various  times  when 
necessities  were  very  great  for  money,  and  he  said  he  would  be  very 
glad  to  subscribe.* 

"  *Q.  This  was  for  the  state  campaign  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.' 

"  *Q.  And  Mr.  McCurdy  so  understood  it  ? — ^A.  He  understood  it, 
and  could  not  understand  it  any  other  way,  because  I  was  not  repre- 
senting the  national  campaign.' 

"Senator  Piatt  said  that  he  had  received  a  few  contributions  of 
$10,000  a  year  from  Mr.  John  A.  McCall,  president  of  the  New  York 
Life  Insurance  Company,  but  had  no  personal  knowledge  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  money  came  out  of  the  funds  of  the  company  or  was  a 
personal  contribution  from  Mr.  McCall. 

"I  submit  the  questions  and  answers  as  to  the  motives  which 
prompted  these  contributions: 

"  'Q.  SENATOR,  WHAT  DO  YOU  UNDERSTAND  WAS  THE 
QUID  PRO  QUO  OF  THOSE  CONTRIBUTIONS?  DID  YOU  EVER 
UNDERSTAND  THAT  THE  COMPANIES  MIGHT  EXPECT  SOME- 
THING IN  RETURN f— A.  I  SUPPOSED  THAT  THEY  WOULD 
EXPECT  MY  INFLUENCE  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  ADVERSE  LEGIS- 
LATION.' 

"  *Q.  Did  they  ever  ask  you  to  influence  legislation  ? — A.  Never.' 

"  'Q.  Could  you  have  done  so? — A.  No.' 

"*Q.  Then  what  service  could  you  render? — A.  /  suppose  that  they 
thought  I  might  have  some  little  influence  with  my  party  (Repub- 
lican ) .' 

"The  'legal  expenses'  of  the  Mutual  were  $347,000  in  1903,  $130,000 
in  excess  of  1902,  when  they  were  $216,000.  For  1904  they  were 
$459,000,  in  1901,  $243,000.  In  these  four  years  the  'legal  expenses' 
of  the  Mutual  amounted  to  $1,265,000.  Mr.  Robert  Olyphant,  who  is 
a  member  of  its  committee  of  expenditures,  says  that  money  for  secret 
and  confidential  purposes  is  charged  to  the  account  of  'legal  expenses.' 

"Mr.  Olyphant  said  on  the  witness  stand  October  10,  1905,  that  the 
Mutual  Life  had  paid  out  $200,000  on  vouchers  of  $25,000  each,  In 
1903  and  1904,  on  account  of  'private  legal  expenses.' 

"Mr.  Robert  A.  Grannis,  vice-president  of  the  Mutvial  Life,  testify- 
ing on  the  same  day,  said: 

"  'If  money  was  necessary  to  protect  the  company  against  adverse 
legislation,  there  was  no  hesitation  in  laying  out  the  requisite  funds.' 

"Mr.  Walter  R.  Gillette,  vice-president  of  the  Mutual  Life,  said  that 
the  general  solicitor  of  the  company  could  get  whatever  funds  he 
wanted  without  giving  any  reason  for  it." 

Thummel  testified  that  he  had  delivered  to  Chairman  Babcock 
$5000  of  the  money  of  the  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company  for 
the  use  of  the  Republican  Congressional  campaign  in  1904. 

George  W.  Perkins  testified  that  he  had  given  Chairman  Bliss, 
of  the  Republican  National  Committee,  between  forty  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars,  and  had  been  reimbursed  by  the  company  after 
the  election,  so  that  the  contribution  did  not  appear  on  the  com- 
pany's books.  The  New  York  Life,  the  Mutual  and  the  Equitable 
contributed  $50,000  each  to  the  Republican  National  Committee 
in  19047  The  Prudential  Life,  Senator  Dryden's  company,  also 
contributed  very  largely.  The  contributions  were,  as  Judge  Parker 
charged^ 


CORRUPTION  AND  SCANDALS.  125 

"moneys  belonging  to  their  stockholders ;  moneys  not  given  in  the  open 
and  charged  upon  the  books  as  moneys  paid  for  political  purposes,  but 
hidden  away  by  false  bookkeeping." 

No  man  can  honestly  doubt  or  deny  that  the  railroad  com- 
panies, banks,  trust  companies  and  other  great  corporations  con- 
tributed in  the  same  surreptitious  and  unlawful  manner  to  the 
Republican  campaign  fund  of  1904,  or  that,  in  making  the  con- 
tributions, they  all  thought  that  Bliss  and  Cortelyou,  as  well  as 
Piatt,  "might  have  had  some  influence  with  the  party,"  and  would 
oxert  that  influence  in  the  interest  of  the  contributors.  Nor  can 
it  be  doubted  that  political  influence  was  exerted  to  keep  Bliss 
and  Cortelyou  off  the  witness  stand  in  the  insurance  investiga- 
tion. Why  has  not  President  Roosevelt  required  Bliss  and  Cor- 
telyou to  make  restitution  of  the  moneys  thus  unlawfully  received 
by  them?  Why  did  he  not  urge  the  passage  of  the  Tillman  bill  to 
prohibit  contributions  by  corporations  to  party  campaign  funds 
in  the  future?  Why  did  he  not  urge  the  passage  of  the  Tillman 
resolution  for  the  investigation  of  contributions  by  national 
banks  to  party  corruption  funds? 

Republican   ex-Postmaster-General  John  Wanamaker  says: 
"I  have  been  a  Republican  since  1860,  but  my  party  stinks  in 
the  nostrils  of  decent  men.     If  the  people  are  willing  to  uphold 
such  corruption  as  many  of  the  leaders  practice  and  to  condone 
their  dishonesty,  God  help  the  country." 

General  Wanamaker  thus  spoke  several  years  ago  before 
the  recent  disclosures  of  corruption  and  fraud  in  his  own  State 
(Pennsylvania),  and  New  York,  both  governed  by  Republican 
Governors  and  Officers — and  laws  made  by  Republican  legisla- 
tures. 

GOOD  FOR  THE  SOUL. 

HOWEVER  DESIRABLE  IT  WAS  TO  DEFEAT  THE  FREE 
SILVER  AGITATION  IN  1896,  DID  THE  END  JUSTIFY  THE 
MEANS  EMPLOYED  TO  ACCOMPLISH  THAT  DEFEAT?  IT  IS 
ITOT  TOO  MUCH  TO  SAY  THAT  THE  MONEY  SPENT  IN  1896 
TO  PREVENT  THE  ELECTION  OF  BRYAN  RESULTED  IN  PO- 
LITICAL DEBAUCHERY.  SUCH  AS  WAS  NEVER  BEFORE  EX- 
PERIENCED IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AND  FROM  WHICH 
THE  POLITICS  AND  BUSINESS  OF  THIS  COUNTRY  HAVE 
NOT  EVEN  YET  RECOVERED.  IT  IS  NOT  FAR  FROM  THE 
TRUTH  TO  SAY  THAT  THE  COUNTRY  HAS  SUFFERED  MORE 
BY  REASON  OF  THE  POLITICAL  CORRUPTION  OF  THE  1896 
CAMPAIGN  THAN  IT  WOULD  HAVE  SUFFERED  FROM  THE 
TRIUMPH  OF  FREE  SILVER,  LAMENTABLE  AS  THAT  WOULD 
HAVE  BEEN.  BRYAN'S  TRIUMPH  OF  FREE  SILVER  WOULD 
HAVE  GIVEN  THE  MARKETS  A  TERRIBLE  SHOCK,  BUT 
BRYAN  COULD  NOT  HAVE  REALLY  DONE  MUCH  HARM  IN 
A  PRACTICAL  WAY,  AND  THE  COUNTRY  WOULD  HAVE  MADE 
-A  SPEEDY  RECOVERY  FROM  THE  DISASTER,  BUT  IT  WILL 
TAKE  MANY  YEARS  TO  RECOVER  FROM  THE  EFFECTS  OF 

THE  Political  debauchery  which  has  been  brought 

ABOUT  by  the  abuse  OF  MILLIONS  OF  DOLLARS  IN  PO- 
LITICAL CAMPAIGNS.— WALL  STREET  NEWS. 

But  the  stream  of  corruption  continues  from  year  to  year,  from 
election  to  election — and  always  from  the  same  locality  and  same 
fountain  head — Republican  states.  Republican  strongholds,  under 
Republican  laws, 


126  PANAMA  SUPPLIES. 


PANAMA  SUPPLIES. 

MANUFACTURERS'      ASSOCIATION'S      ACT— FAVOR      PUR- 
CHASES  IN   OPEN   MARKET. 

The  Committee  on  Resolutions  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers,  which  met  in  Atlanta,  May  16-18,  1905,  by  a  "ris- 
ing vote,  rejected"  a  proposition  calling  for  such  a  law,  as  shown 
by  the  following: 

The  President — *We  have  another  resolution  from  the  committee. 

The  Secretary — The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions 
moves  the  adoption  of  the  following : 

Whereas,  It  is  reported  by  The  Associated  Press  that  the  Isthmian 
Canal  Commission  has  decided  (Washington,  D.  C,  May  15,  1905)  to 
purchase  materials,  etc.,  in  connection  with  the  construction  of  the 
Panama  Canal  from  foreign  countries  and  foreign  producers;  and, 

Whereas,  The  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  an  American 
enterprise,  by  the  Americn  Government,  to  be  paid  for  with  American 
money. 

Resolved,  That  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  in  annual 
convention  assembled  earnestly  protests  against  the  reported  policy  of 
purchase  of  foreign  materials,  etc.,  and  requests  that  American  mate- 
rials produced  by  American  workmen  be  used  exclusively  in  connection 
with  said  enterprise,  excepting,  of  course,  such  materials  as  are  not 
produced  in  this  country. 

A  leading  member  (Mr.  Post)  of  the  Association,  in  opposing 
this  resolution,  said: 

"I  do  not  propose  to  take  issue  one  way  or  the  other  on  this  ques- 
tion, but  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  this  fact,  that  if  we  pass 
that  resolution,  we,  as  manufacturers,  must  remember  that  we  are  not 
all  of  America.  America  is  for  Americans,  but  we  are  not  all  there 
is  of  America,  and  we  are  asking  the  United  States  Government  and  all 
of  the  people  in  America — some  eighty  millions  of  them — to  tax  them- 
selves in  excess  for  our  PARTICULAR  BENEFIT."  (Applause.) 

Other  speeches  were  made  pro  and  con. 

The  President — ^The  question  is  called  for.  Those  in  favor  of  the 
motion  will  make  it  known  by  saying  "aye;"  those  opposed  "no."  The 
"noes"  seem  to  have  it. 

Mr.  Seabury  (who  favored  the  resolution)  said:  "Let  us  have  a 
rising  vote  on  that." 

On  a  rising  vote  the  resolution  was  rejected. 


PANAMA   SUPPLIES.  127 


FOREIGN  CEMENT  BOUGHT. 

AMERICAN    CEMENT    37    CENTS    HIGHER    THAN    FOREIGN 

CEMENT. 

SECRETARY  BISHOP'S  LETTER. 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  16,  1906.— Sir— In  the  absence  of 
Mr.  Shonts,  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter 
of  the  16th  inst.,  transmitting  a  communication  from  the  Hon.  Wm. 
Lorimer,  dated  the  10th  inst.,  inclosing  a  letter  from  the  Chicago 
Portland  Cement  Company,  bearing  date  April  2,  1906,  with  reference 
to  the  last  purchase  of  Portland  cement  by  the  Isthmian  Canal  Com- 
mission on  October  7th,  last. 

When  the  lot  of  cement  in  question  was  purchased  a  number  of  bids 
were  received  on  American  cement  and  a  number  also  on  foreign 
cement.  THE  LOWEST  BID  RECEIVED  ON  AMERICAN  CEMENT 
WAS  37  CENTS  PER  BARREL  HIGHER  THAN  THE  LOWEST 
BID  ON  FOREIGN  CEMENT.  AFTER  FULL  INVESTIGATION 
AND  TEST  THE  LOWEST  BID  WAS  ACCEPTED,  AND  THE 
CEMENT  FURNISHED  ON  THE  CONTRACT  HAS  PROVEN  TO 
BE  VERY  SATISFACTORY.  AS  THE  QUANTITY  OF  CEMENT 
PURCHASED  AT  THAT  TIME  WAS  20,000  BARRELS,  YOU  WILL 
NOTE  THAT  THIS  LOT  OF  CEMENT  WOULD  HAVE  COST 
$7,400  MORE  IF  THE  USE  OF  FOREIGN  CEMENT  HAD  BEEN 
PROHIBITED. 

The  statements  made  in  the  communication  from  the  Chicago 
Portland  Cement  Company  as  to  the  desirability  of  purchasing 
materials  needed  in  the  construction  of  the  canal  as  far  as  possible 
in  the  United  States  are  fully  appreciated,  and  where  prices  have 
been  anything  like  equal  home  concerns  have  been  favored. 

OPEN   MARKETS  A  WISE   POLICY. 

I  think  you  will  agree,  however,  that  in  the  case  of  the  lot  of 
cement  in  question  the  commission  would  not  have  been  justified  in 
paying  $7,400  more  for  American  cement  than  for  foreign  cement, 
particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  the 
quality  of  the  foreign  cement  being  fully  equal  to  that  offered  by  the 
lowest  bidder  on  American  cement. 

Very  respectfully, 

Joseph  Bucklin  Bishop,  Secretary. 
Hon.  a.  J.  Hopkins,  United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

—  (American  Economist,  May  4,  1906.) 

The  Secretary  of  War  (Taft)  stated  to  Congress  that  he  had 
saved  a  great  deal  of  money  for  the  government  by  purchasing 
supplies  from  Australia  and  other  foreign  countries  for  the 
use  of  our  army  and  officials  operating  in  the  Philippine  Islands; 
that  he  had  also  saved  money  by  purchasing  some  of  the  Panama 
supplies  in  the  open  markets  of  the  world,  and  thought  it  was 
wise  to  do  so.  But  the  Republicans,  put  and  maintained  in  power 
by  the  Steel  Trust,  Cement  Trust  and  other  trusts  which  furnish 
building  material,  would  not  have  the  law  that  way,  and  on  June 
25,  1906,  over  the  protest  of  the  Democrats,  the  Republicans 
passed  this  Joint  Resolution,    No.  60: 

REPUBLICANS  VOTE  TO  GIVE  TRUSTS  CONTROL. 

"Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled.  That  purchases  of  material  and  equip- 
ment for   use   in   the   construction   of   the   Panama   Canal   shall   be 


128  PANAMA    8UPPLIESi. 

restricted  to  articles  of  domestic  production  and  manufacture,  from 
the  lowest  responsible  bidder,  unless  the  President  shall,  in  any  case, 
deem  the  bids  or  tenders  therefor  to  be  extortionate  or  unreasonable." 
Approved  June  25,  1906. 

By  this  resolution  the  purchase  of  supplies  for  the  Panama 
Canal  is  now  by  virtue  of  the  vote  of  the  Republicans  of  both  the 
Senate  and  House,  compelled  to  be  made  of  the  Trusts  and  Com- 
bines, unless  their  bids  for  material  are  "extortionate  or  unrea- 
sonable." What  is  extortionate  or  unreasonable  is  left  for  the 
President  to  decide  and  not  to  competitive  bids  in  the  open  mar- 
l^ets  of  the  world,  as  justice  to  the  taxpayers  demands.  How 
can  the  President  or  anyone  know  a  given  price  is  "extortionate 
or  unreasonable"  unless  he  has  competitive  bids?  How  can  the 
President  well  know  what  a  foreign  concern  will  furnish  a  given 
article  for  unless  the  foreigners  are  allowed  to  bid? 

The  Senate,  before  adopting  the  joint  resolution  No.  60,  re- 
jected, by  a  party  vote,  the  amendment  of  Senator  Mallory  to 
strike  out  the  words  "extortionate  or."  The  Senate  also  refused, 
by  a  party  vote,  the  substitute  proposed  by  Senator  Carmack, 
which  read  as  follows: 

"That  in  all  the  contracts  for  the  purchase  of  material  and  equip- 
ment for  use  in  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  preference 
shall  be  given  to  articles  of  domestic  production  or  manufacture, 
conditions  of  quality  and  price  being  equal." 

The  determination  of  the  Republican  Senators  to  compel  the 
President  and  the  War  Department  to  purchase  supplies  for  the 
Panama  Canal  of  the  Trusts  and  Combines  is  further  shown  by 
the  text  of  the  original  resolution  as  recommended  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  Mr.  Taft,  which  was  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  etc.,  That  purchase  of  material  and  equipment  for  use  in 
the  Construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  be  restricted  to  articles 
of  domestic  production  and  manufacture  unless  the  President  deem 

THE  BID   therefor   TO   BE   UNREASONABLE." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  words  "extortionate  or"  and  the 
sentence  following  the  word  unreasonable  were  added  by  the 
Senate  Finance  Committee. 

The  Shipbuilding  Trust  and  the  Steel,  Trust  wer6  evidently  the 
main  levers  that  moved  the  Republican  members  of  Congress  to 
force  through  this  resolution,  which  compels  the  Panama  Com- 
mission to  pay  $35,425  each  more  for  100  dredges,  or  $3,542,400, 
that  being  the  number  stated  that  will  be  purchased. 

Two  ships  had  already  been  purchased  for  the  use  of  the  Canal 
Commission  before  the  above  resolution  was  adopted  by  Congress, 
and  the  price  paid  indicates  that  the  President  at  that  time  had 
backed  down  from  his  position  of  "buying  in  the  cheapest  mar- 
ket" under  the  extreme  pressure  from  the  trust  magnates  and 
protected  monopolists  and  the  other  organized  protectionists. 

Two  foreign-built  ships  of  6,000  tons  capacity  each  had  been 
offered  to  the  Canal  Commission  for  $750,000  each,  but  two  Ameri- 
can-built ships  were  purchased  of  5,700  tons  capacity  for  $1,300,000. 


PANAMA    SUPPLIES.  129 

Senator  Stone,  of  Missouri,  said  in  the  Senate  (see  Cong.  Record, 
June  1,  1906,  p.  7904): 

"Xhese  two  American  ships,  known  as  the  Havana  and  Mexico^  were 
purchased  at  the  price  named  of  the  New  York  and  Cuban  Mail 
Steamship  Company  of  New  York,  commonly  known  as  'The  Ward 
Line.'  They  liad  been  in  commission  and  in  active  service  for  from 
seven  to  eight  years.  Last  December  I  had  occasion  here  in  the 
Senate  to  refer  to  the  purchase  of  these  ships  and  to  comment  on 
the  transaction.  At  that  time  I  called  attention  to  the  fact — for  it 
is  a  fact  that  no  Senator  here  will  dispute — that  it  is  a  rule,  based 
on  experience,  for  shipowners  to  write  off  5  per  cent,  of  the  cost 
value  of  the  ship  for  every  year  it  is  in  active  service.  In  addition 
to  that,  it  is  generally  agreed  that  the  average  life  of  a  ship's  boiler 
plant  is  about  eight  years,  and  that  the  boiler  plant  represents  about 
15  per  cent,  of  the  total  value  of  the  steamer.  I  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  these  ships,  the  Havana  and  the  Mexico,  had  been  in 
active  service  for  from  seven  to  eight  years,  as  shown  by  the  public 
records.  Upon  the  strength  of  those  facts  I  then  contended,  as  I 
now  contend,  that  the  real  market  value  of  these  ships  at  the  time 
the  Government  purchased  them  could  not  have  been  more  than  about 
60  per  cent,  of  their  value  when  new.  In  the  very  nature  of  things, 
tested  by  whatever  rule,  there  must  have  been  a  depreciation  of  from 
35  to  40  per  cent,  in  the  value  of  those  ships.  But  at  that  time  1 
was  not  able  to  give  the  original  cost  of  the  ships;  that  is,  the  price 
paid  the  builders  for  constructing  them.  Now,  however,  I  am  able 
to  supply  that  information. 

"At  the  hearings  had  before  the  Merchant  Marine  Commission 
during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1905  Mr.  Alfred  G.  Smith  ap- 
peared as  a  witness.  See  his  testimony,  volume  1,  of  the  hearings. 
He  testified  that  he  was  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the  Ward  Line, 
and  he  gave  a  list  of  the  ships  constituting  the  fleet  of  that  line,  with 
the  dates  of  their  construction.  On  page  131,  volume  1,  of  the  hear- 
ings, Mr.  Smith  testified : 

"  'We  have  two  vessels  of  5,700  tons  each.    They  are  16-knot  ships.' 

"These  were  the  Havana  and  the  Mexico.  Senator  Lodge  inquired 
as  to  how  much  they  cost,  and  Mr.  Smith  answered : 

"  'In  the  vicinity  of  $550,000  apiece;  perhaps  $600,000.' 

"So  we  have  it  directly  from  the  lips  of  one  of  the  chief  officials  of 
the  company,  for  whom  the  ships  were  built  and  who  sold  them  to 
the  Government,  that  they  cost  originally  in  the  vicinity  of  $550,000 
each,  or  possibly,  he  said,  as  much  as  $600,000  each.  Here,  then,  we 
have  an  example  of  how  the  President  kept  his  promise,  so  vocifer- 
ously and  repeatedly  made,  to  guard  the  Treasury  and  the  people 
against  the  inroads  of  plunderers. 

"Two  English  ships  of  larger  tonnage  were  offered  for  $750,000, 
but  the  opportunity  to  buy  them  was  abandoned  under  pressure  and 
two  American  ships  of  lighter  tonnage  were  purchased  for  $1,300,000, 
which  was  from  $100,000  to  $200,000  more  than  the  ships  cost  the 
owners  when  they  were  built. 

"Be  it  also  remembered  that  under  the  rule  universally  observed  by 
shipowners  of  writing  ofT  a  percentage  of  the  value  of  a  vessel  for 
each  year  of  active  service  these  ships  were  necessarily  worth  from 
35  to  40  per  cent,  less  the  day  the  Government  bought  them  than 
they  were  the  day  the  Cramps,  who  built  them,  delivered  them  to 
their  owners." 

OTHER  MATERIAL  PURCHASED. 

In  Senate  Document  261,  part  one,  there  is  a  list  of  contracts 
aggregating  $1000  or  more  entered  into  by  the  Isthmian  Canal 
Commission  from  February  1,  1905,  to  October  31,  1905.  That 
document  shows  that  290  contracts  were  entered  into  during  the 
nine  months  named  of  the  total  amount  of  $6,124,658.21.     A  large 


130  PANAMA  SUPPLIES. 

proportion  of  these  contracts  were  supplied  by  the  steel  and  other 
trusts,  and  for  some  unexplained  reason  the  price  at  which  the 
articles  were  furnished  is  not  given  in  the  report  probably  because 
the  price  exceeded  what  the  price  the  same  trusts  were  selling 
similar  articles  al)road. 

There  is  also  part  two  of  the  same  document  which  contains  a 
list  of  112  other  purchases  of  the  Canal  Commission  from  Novem- 
ber 1,  1905,  to  March  7,  1906,  which  in  the  aggregate  amount  to 
$893,387.74. 

Taking  these  13  months'  purchases  of  supplies  as  what  will  be 
required  on  the  average,  gives  the  annual  purchases  for  supplies 
as  $6,478,196.28  without  including  the  ships  and  dredges  and  other 
heavy  machinery  and  small  items  costing  less  than  $1000.  As 
it  is  expected  that  the  canal  will  take  at  least  ten  years  to  build 
the  materials  will  cost  exceeding  $64,000,000.  As  the  difference 
in  the  price  here  and  the  price  abroad  on  such  supplies  is  on  the 
average  about  40  per  cent,  in  consequence  of  the  protection  to 
the  trusts,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  increased  expenditures  under 
this  Republican  policy  will  be  at  least  $38,400,000  and  the 
increased  cost  of  the  dredges  and  ships,  added  to  the  above  would 
make  the  total  extra  cost  exceed  $40,000,000.  And  that  would  not 
allow  anything  for  the  purchase  of  more  ships  and  dredges. 

The  Democratic  position  on  the  purchase  of  these  supplies  was 
to  leave  with  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission  the  power  to  buy 
supplies  in  the  cheapest  market  and  to  confine  their  purchases  to 
American  products  if  the  price  does  not  exceed  the  standard 
export  price.  The  Republicans  claimed  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  a  standard  of  export  prices,  but  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Shonts, 
the  President  of  the  Commission,  and  Mr.  Ross,  the  purchasing 
agent  of  the  Commission,  shows  that  there  is  a  standard  of  export 
prices.     That  testimony  is  as  follows: 

Mr.  Shonts — "I  would  favor  buying  in  the  open  market  for  the 
reasons  Mr.  Ross  has  stated.  I  think  the  fact  that  we  have  that 
privilege  enables  us  to  get  our  American  made  material  cheaper.  I 
think  that  the  steel  companies,  to  illustrate,  give  us  the  benefit  of 
their  export  pr'ices." 

Mr.  Ross — "There  is  one  other  thing  that  I  might  have  said.  I 
do  not  know  positively,  as  I  said  a  while  ago,  that  the  United  States 
steel  export  companies,  for  instance,  would  take  advantage  of.  us  if 
we  didn't  have  the  right  of  foreign  competition,  but  they  do  put  our 
business  on  an  export  basis  now.  For  instance,  on  steel  rails — ^we 
have  bought  steel  rails  during  the  last  year  for  $26.40  a  ton,  delivered 
alongside  a  vessel  at  Baltimore,  Avhile  the  rate  that  they  usually 
charge  the  railroads  of  this  country  was  $28  at  the  mill."  ( See  Con- 
gressional Record,  June  16,  1906,  page  8909.) 

That  evidence  also  shows  that  foreign  competition  kept  the 
steel  trust  and  the  other  combines  to  reasonable  prices,  somewhere 
near  their  regular  export  prices,  but  now  the  law  has  been  changed 
to  compel  the  purchase  of  supplies  in  the  United  States,  unless 
the  President  decides  the  price  is  "extortionate  or  unreasonable" 
will  allow  the  trusts  to  advance  prices  to  the  point  where  the 
President  should  declare  they  are  extortionate.  How  high  the 
prices  will  be,  before  the  President  decides  they  are  extortionate 
is  a  matter  of  speculation  and  in  view  of  the  decision  of  President 


PANAMA    tSUFFLlEIS.  ILL 


Roosevelt  to  "stand  pat"  like  the  other  trust-favoring  Republicans 
of  Congress  probably  never  will  be  decided,  and  the  trusts  will  be 
allowed  to  charge  "all  the  traffic  will  bear." 

In  less  than  three  months  after  this  pro-trust  resolution  was 
signed  by  the  President,  what  happened? 


BIDS  FOR  ENGINES  TO  GO  TO  CANAL 

BALDWIN     LOCOMOTIVE    WORKS'    PRICE    $458,600    FOR 
FORTY   MOGULS— ONLY  ONE   RAIL   BIDDER— SUB- 
SIDIARY OF  STEEL  TRUST   MAKES   PRICE 
OF  $29.45  PER  TON   F.  O.   B. 
BALTIMORE. 

Bids  were  opened  this  morning  at  the  offices  of  the  Isthmian  Canal 
Commission  for  forty  Mogul  engines  and  for  5000  tons  of  steel  rails 
for  use  on  the  Isthmian  Canal. 

The  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works,  of  Philadelphia,  was  the  lowest 
bidder  on  the  engines,  offering  to  deliver  them  at  Colon  for  $458,600. 
The  bid  of  the  Lima  Locomotive  Machine  Company,  Lima,  Ohio,  was 
$475,200  and  that  of  the  American  Locomotive  Company,  of  New 
York,  $526,000. 

There  was  only  one  bidder  offering  to  supply  the  steel  rails.  That 
was  the  U.  S.  Steel  Products  Export  Company,  of  New  York,  a  sub- 
sidiary of  the  Steel  Trust.  Its  bid  was  $147,250,  which  is  at  the 
rate  of  $29.45  per  ton,  delivered  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  Baltimore.  An  alter- 
nate bid,  for  delivery  at  Colon,  raises  the  price  by  $16,250.  THIS 
BID  IS  CONSIDERED  EXTREMELY  HIGH,  BUT  BEING  THE 
ONLY  ONE  SUBMITTED  MAY  BE  ACCEPTED.— Washington 
Times,  September  6,  1906. 

SHIP   SUBSIDIES  AND  HIGH   TARIFF. 

John  Roach,  protectionist  ship  builder,  to  a  special  committee 
of  the  House  in  1869,  said: 

"America  has  lost  her  commerce,  and  what  has  she  obtained  in  ex- 
change for  it  ?  Simply  the  right  of  a  few  men  to  charge  $9.00  per  ton 
in  gold  on  the  importation  of  pig  iron.  Pig  iron  is  the  basis  of  all 
other  metals  connected  with  the  making  and  repairing  of  ships.  There 
has  been  a  revolution  in  shipbuilding,  and  iron  is  the  material  from 
which  they  are  now  built.  The  high  cost  of  iron  produced  by  the 
tariff  upon  it  is  one  of  the  principal  difficulties  our  commerce  has  to 
contend  with.  I  did  not  come  here  to  ask  a  bounty.  I  came  here 
to  tell  you  that  while  all  other  articles  of  American  produce  are  pro- 
tected to  a  great  extent  there  is  no  protection  for  American  ships. 
If  Congress  will  take  off  all  the  duties  from  American  iron,  reducing 
it  to  the  price  of  foreign  iron,  then  we  are  prepared  to  compete  with 
foreign  shipbuilders.  The  labor  question  is  mistaken;  we  are  pre- 
pared to  meet  that  difficulty  and  to  ask  no  further  legislation  on  the 
subject." 

Mr.  Morrill,  protectionist  Republican,  asked  Mr.  C.  H.  Cramp  as 
to  the  rate  of  duty  imposed  on  shipbuilding  material  and  Mr. 
Cramp  replied: 

"About  40  per  cent.,  and  if  our  shipbuilders  could  be  relieved  from 
that,  they  could  compete  successfully  with  foreign  shipbuilders.     The 


132  PANAMA   SUPPLIES. 

difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  would  be  overcome  by  the  superiority 
of  American  mechanics.  Wooden  ships  will  no  longer  be  built,  since 
iron  ships  are  superior  in  every  respect." 

Senator  Chandler,  of  Michigan,  in  1872,  said: 

"It  is  desirable  to  own  iron  ships,  very  desirable,  and  I  hope  to  see 
the  day  when  we  shall  have  our  old  supremacy  in  shipping,  but  it 
never  will  be  done  in  the  world  by  subsidies.  It  is  not  the  subsidized 
lines  of  Great  Britain  that  pay  the  largest  returns.  *  *  *  You 
will  never  restore  your  flag  to  the  ocean  by  subsidies,  I  care  not  how 
great  you  may  make  them;  you  may  increase  your  subsidies  to  $10,000,- 
000  a  year  and  you  will  not  restore  your  flag." 

Senator  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  in  1872,  said: 

"Is  it  practicable  to  recall  our  shipping?  I  think  it  is,  and  by  the 
simplest  process.  NOT  A  DOLLAR  OF  SUBSIDIES.  GIVE  US 
CHEAP  MATERIALS,  AND  WE  WILL  DO. IT.  Give  us  the  ground 
on  which  we  stand,  so  that  we  shall  have  our  materials  just  as  cheap 
as  they  can  be  afforded  elsewhere,  and  then  all  these  shipyards  and 
all  that  skilled  labor  will  be  at  work  at  once;  and  you  will  find  that 
we  shall  restore  the  balance  of  the  shipping  interests  on  the  ocean, 
that  now  stands  against  us." 

Senator  Sherman,  May  4,  1872,  said: 

"SINCE  WE  CANNOT  BUILD  THESE  VESSELS  WITHIN  20 
OR  30  PER  CENT.  OF  THE  COST  IN  ENGLAND,  WHY  NOT 
ADMIT  THEM  FREE?*  WHY  NOT  ADMIT  THEM  DUTY  FREE, 
RAISE  THE  AMERICAN  FLAG  UPON  THEM,  PUT  AMERICAN 
OFFICERS  UPON  THEIR  DECKS,  AND  HAVE  AMERICAN  LINES 
INSTEAD  OF  BRITISH  LINES?  Why,  sir,  if  that  bill  should  pass, 
authorizing  foreign  ships  when  owned  by  American  citizens,  to  be 
used  for  the  present,  for  three  years  under  the  American  flag,  one- 
half  of  the  lines  between  New  York  and  England  would  be  American 
lines  in  sixty  days." 

The  present  Speaker  of  the  House,  Mr.  Cannon,  February  28, 
1879,  denounced  ship  subsidies. 
He  then  said: 


"Now,  what  is  this  proposition?  Oh,  it  is  to  give  John  Roach 
$3,000,000  as  a  practical  gratuity  and  to  charge  that  as  a  tax  on  the 
cotton,  and  provisions,  and  tobacco,  and  wheat,  and  grain,  and  bread- 
stuffs,  and  oil  that  we  produce.  What  for?  To  enable  somebody  to 
sell  something  that  he  has  made,  which  it  cost  $1.43  to  make  here, 
while  it  costs  only  a  dollar  to  make  it  in  Europe,  and  both  manufac- 
turers have  to  go  to  the  same  market,  namely  Brazil.  WHY, 
GENTLEMEN,  IF  YOU  HAD  A  BUSINESS  AGENT  WHO  PRO- 
POSED TO  DO  YOUR  PRIVATE  BUSINESS  IN  THAT  WAY,  YOU 
WOULD  PUT  HIM  INTO  A  LUNATIC  ASYLUM  OR  SWEAR  THAT 
HE  WAS  A  THIEF  OR  AN  IDIOT  AND  DISCHARGE  HIM. 

"Commencing  in  the  year  1847  down  to  the  present  time  (1879)  act 
after  act  has  been  passed  for  a  similar  purpose  ( postal  subsidies ) .  I 
hold  in  my  hand  the  official  statements  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
and  the  Postmaster-General,  which  show  payments  of  subsidies  to 
the  amount,  in  round  numbers,  of  $14,500,000  to  steamship  lines  during 
the  period  from  the  year  1848  to  1858.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  statement 
that  shows  subsidies  to  the  amount  of  $7,000,000,  in  round  numbers, 
since  that  time,  making  over  $21,000^000  that  have  been  paid  out  of 
the  Treasury  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  steamship  lines — 
$7,000,000  would  buy  all  the  steamships  engaged  in  commerce  that  sail 


PANAMA    SUPPLIES.  133 


under  the  American  flag  on  every  ocean  in  the  world — and  more  than 
that;  the  subsidizing  of  these  steamship  lines,  from  the  'Collins'  line 
in  1852  up  to  the  present  time,  has  bankrupted  every  prominent  man 
that  has  favored  it." 


UNITED  STATES   PREDOMINANT  IN    IRON  AND  STEEL 
MAKING. 

President  McKinley  submitted  January  29,  1901,  to  Congress  an 
official  "Review  of  the  world's  commerce,"  which  at  page  22  states: 

'"The  most  striking  fact  in  our  export  development  is  the  remark- 
able growth  of  the  foreign  demand  for  our  iron  and  steel,  our  exports 
amounting  to  nearly  $130,000,000  in  1900  against  $32,000,000  in  1895. 
In  an  article  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post  of  January  12,  1901, 
Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  says  the  United  States  has  not  only  supplied 
its  own  wants,  'but  is  competing  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  world, 
not  only  in  steel,  but  in  the  thousand  and  one  articles  of  which  steel 
is  the  chief  component  part,'  and  expresses  the  opinion  that  the 
increasing  demand  from  the  world  at  large  'can  be  met  only  by  the 
United  States.' 

"THE  INFLUENCE  OF  OUR  STEEL-MAKING  CAPACITY, 
ADDS  MR.  CARNEGIE,  'MUST  BE  MARVELOUS,  FOR  THE 
NATION  WHICH  MAKES  THE  CHEAPEST  STEEL  HAS  THE 
OTHER  NATIONS  AT  ITS  FEET  AS  FAR  AS  MANUFACTURING 
IS  CONCERNED  IN  MOST  OF  ITS  BRANCHES.  THE  CHEAPEST 
STEEL  MEANS  THE  CHEAPEST  SHIPS,  THE  CHEAPEST 
MACHINERY,  THE  CHEAPEST  THOUSAND  AND  ONE  ARTICLES 
OF  WHICH  STEEL  IS  THE  BASE.'"  (Review  of  the  World's 
Commerce,  1900.) 

CHEAPNESS  OF  AMERICAN    GOODS. 

"It  is  the  relative  cheapness  of  American  steel  that  has  given  it 
pre-eminence,  and  it  is  the  same  with  other  products  that  are  winning 
their  way  abroad.  Economy  of  production  is  the  master  key  that 
unlocks  for  us  markets  that  seemed  a  little  while  ago  to  be  inexorably 
closed.  This  economy  of  production  implies  not  merely  low  prices 
to  the  foreign  consumer,  but  a  greater  degree  of  excellence,  a  superior 
adaption  to  his  wants.  As  he  has  been  pointed  out  in  the  Reviews, 
as  well  as  elsewhere,  the  American  workingman,  though  receiving 
higher  wages,  produces,  with  labor  saving  machinery,  at  a  lower  unit 
of  cost,  and  his  greater  application  and  ingenuity  enable  him  to  avail 
himself  effectively  of  the  most  recent  inventions  and  appliances  for 
improving  the  quality  of  his  special  line  of  work.  The  American 
factory  system  is  highly  organized  and  mca-e  efficient  than  any  other, 
and  if  our  export  trade  were  as  well  developed,  there  would  be  little 
to  fear."     (Review  of  the  World's  Commerce,  1900.) 

With  the  "cheapest  steel  and  iron"  in  the  world,  the  ship  trust 
still  cries  for  "subsidy."  With  thousands  of  men,  widows  and 
orphans  begging  Congress,  as  they  have  for  years,  for  the  payment 
of  their  claims  against  the  Government,  many  of  which  are  just, 
a  deaf  ear  is  turned  to  them,  but  not  to  the  ship  builders — ^backed 
by  millions. 


134  PROPOSED  SHIP  SUBSIDY  LEGISLATION. 


PROPOSED  SHIP  SUBSIDY  LEGISLATION. 

The  favorite  measure  of  the  Roosevelt  administration  is  the 
ship  subsidy  bill  (S.  529).  This  bill  passed  the  Senate  February 
4,  1906,  38  Republicans  voting  for  it  and  23  Democrats  and  4 
Republicans  against  it.  (See  yea-and-nay  votes  in  the  Senate 
elsewhere  in  this  volume.)  The  word  subsidy  is  not  used  in  the 
title  of  the  bill,  because  the  Constitution  does  not  authorize  sub- 
sidies. But  the  bill  is  entitled  "A  bill  to  promote  the  national 
defense,  to  create  a  force  of  naval  volunteers,  to  estahlisU  Ameri- 
can ocean  mail  lines  to  foreign  markets  to  promote  commerce,  and 
to  provide  revenue  from  tonnage." 

When  this  bill  was  under  consideration  in  the  Senate,  the 
last  clause  of  the  title — "to  provide  a  revenue  from  tonnage" — 
was  stricken  out,  because  the  Senate  has  no  right  to  originate 
bills  for  raising  revenue.  The  clause  "to  establish  American 
ocean  mail  lines  to  foreign  markets,"  might  also  have  been 
stricken  out  with  equal  propriety;  for  Congress  has  no  power  to 
do  anything  of  that  sort,  any  more  than  it  has  to  establish  post- 
offices  in  foreign  countries  to  handle  American  merchandise.  The 
same  may  also  be  said  of  the  clause  "to  promote  the  national 
defense,"  for  Congress  has  no  power  to  do  that  by  subsidizing 
private  corporations  in  time  of  peace.  Neither  has  it  the  power 
to  create  a  force  of  naval  volunteers  in  time  of  peace. 

But  the  real  purpose  of  the  bill  was  not  disclosed  by  its  title. 
Its  object  was  the  "legalized  robbery"  of  the  masses  for  the 
benefit  of  a  few  persons  engaged  in  the  shipping  business, 
especially  the  steamship  trust,  who  had  furnished  money  to  Mr. 
Hanna  and  his  associates  in  1896  to  help  elect  the  Republican 
ticket.  Indeed,  Mr.  Hanna  is  responsible  for  the  whole  scheme. 
It  was  originated  under  his  leadership  in  the  Fifty-sixth  Congress. 
The  Congressional  Record  for  December  12,  1900,  vol.  33,  p.  789, 
shows  how  the  matter  was  started  in  the  House  of  Representa^ 
tives.  In  relation  to  the  Hanna-Payne  bill  of  that  year,  the 
following  extract  from  the  Record  is  interesting: 

"Mr.  Richardson — I  thiiik,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  rhatter  I  present  is 
one  of  privilege — one  which  affects  the  integrity  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  House.  I  hold  in  my  hand  what  purports  to  be  a  bill.  It  is 
in  the  form  of  a  bill — that  is,  the  first  portion  of  it — and  it  is 
indorsed  'H.  R.  64.  A  bill  to  promote  the  commerce  and  increase  the 
foreign  trade  of  the  United  States,  and  to  provide  auxiliary  cruisers, 
transports,  and  seamen  for  Government  use  when  necessary.' 

"It  purports  to  have  been  introduced  on  the  4th  day  of  December, 
1899,  and  to  have  been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Merchant  Marine 
and  Fisheries,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

"The  first  few  pages  of  this  paper  is  in  the  form  of  a  bill.  The 
latter  pages — four  pages — are  in  different  type,  and  an  argument,  a 
partisan  argument,  in  support  of  the  bill.  After  the  conclusion  of 
the  bill  there  are  four  pages  of  partisan  arguments  and  facts.  It  is 
made  up  in  part  of  statements  purporting  to  show  the  effect  of  the  bill, 
which  I  controvert,  and  which  every  member,  or  almost  every  member, 
on  this  side  of  the  House  would  controvert.  But  whether  on  this  side 
or  that  side,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  whether  true  or  false,  those  statements 
and  arguments  have  no  place  in  a  bill.  Now,  I  submit,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  the  rules  have  been  grossly  violated.     I  submit  that  this  paper 


PROPOSED  SHIP  SUBSIDY  LEGISLATION.  1?5 

is  not  frankable  by  law,  and  any  member  of  this  House  or  of  the  other 
House  who  has  sent  out  this  paper  is  guilty  of  having  violated  the 
postal  law.  It  is  no  part  of  the  Congressional  Record;  it  is  not  a 
bill;  the  words  used,  or  printed,  have  never  been  spoken  upon  the 
floor,  so  far  as  I  know,  and  the  paper  is  not  frankable  by  law. 

"Mr.  Cooper  of  Texas — Who  is  the  mover  of  the  bill? 

"Mr.  Richardson — I  submit,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  bill  should  be 
taken  from  the  files,  and  if  the  gentleman  desires  to  introduce  the  bill, 
let  it  be  introduced  as  all  other  bills  are  prepared,  presented,  and 
introduced  in  this  House.  I  make  the  point  of  order,  first,  that  the 
paper  should  be  suppressed — it  is  not  a  bill — and,  failing  in  that,  I 
shall  move  to  strike  it  from  the  files  and  have  it  destroyed. 

"Mr.  Burke  of  Texas — Who  introduced  the  bill? 

"Mr.  Richardson — The  gentleman  from  New  York,  Mr.  Payne." 

The  Speaker  sustained  the  point  of  order,  and  the  bill  was 
reprinted  and  re-referred. 

The  same  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Frye  under 
the  same  title  (S.  727)  and  was  debated  and  amended  at  the 
second  session,  but  failed  to  pass. 

In  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress  the  bill  was  again  introduced  in 
both  Houses,  but  failed;  and  the  same  thing  happened  in  the 
Fifty-eighth  Congress.  But  near  the  end  of  the  Fifty-eighth 
Congress  a  bill  was  passed  enacting  the  Merchant  Marine  Com- 
mission, composed  of  five  Senators  and  five  members  of  the 
House;  four  commissioners,  two  from  each  house,  being  Demo- 
crats. About  the  beginning  of  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  a  new 
bill,  differing  materially  in  its  title,  as  well  as  in  its  provisions, 
was  introduced.  It  passed  the  Senate,  as  shown,  but  failed  in 
the  House.  This  new  bill  was  prepared  by  the  majority  members 
of  the  Merchant  Marine  Commission,  and  has  the  earnest  endorse- 
ment of  the  administration,  which  has  failed  to  prosecute  the 
steel  trust  and  its  annex,  the  shipbuilding  interests. 

A  fair  idea  of  this  subsidy  proposition  may  be  obtained  from 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Spight,  Democrat,  of  Mississippi  (Congressional 
Record  for  June  27,  page  9601).  He  is  a  member  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries  and  the  Merchant 
Marine  Commission.     Mr.  Spight,  in  part,  said: 

"If  no  other  good  was  accomplished  by  it,  the  Merchant  Marine 
Commission  of  1904  aided  very  materially  in  driving  from  cover  the 
gigantic  steel  trust,  which  teas  systematically  robbing  the  American 
people  for  its  own  enrichment.  I  remember  with  what  horror  the 
'stand-patters'  on  the  Commission  heard  witness  after  witness  of  the 
highest  respectability  and  greatest  opportunities  tell  how  American 
steel  was  delivered  in  foreign  yards  at  prices  far  below  those  charged 
American  consumers  by  the  same  manufacturers  for  the  same  products. 
I  well  remember  that  when  this  statement  was  first  made  the  dis- 
tinguished chairman  of  the  Commission,  Senator  Gallinger,  of  New 
Hampshire,  said: 

"  'I  WANT  TO  SAY,  WHAT  I  THINK  I  AM  PRIVILEGED  TO 
SAY  AS  CHAIRMAN  OF  THIS  COMMISSION,  THAT  IF  THE 
SITUATION  IS  AS  HAS  BEEN  DESCRIBED  IT  IS  A  GREAT 
OUTRAGE.' 

"  'MR.  WALLACE— WE  HAVE  THOUGHT  SO  FOR  SOME  TIME, 
AND  WE  HAVE  THOUGHT  THAT  IN  SOME  WAY  IT  OUGHT  TO 
BE  REMEDIED.' 

"The  same  facts  were  stated  by  many  other  men  of  equally  high 
character,  notably  by  Mr.  G.  W.  Dickey,  superintendent  of  the  Union 
Iron  W^orks  of  San  Francisco,  the  largest  shipbuilding  plant  on  the 
Pacific  Coast.    He  told  what  he  saw  and  knew,  and  neither  Mr.  Gary, 


136  PROPOSED  8HIP  SUBS'IDY  LEGISLATION. 

of  the  steel  trust,  nor  anybody  else  has  ever  denied  or  questioned  the 
accuracy  of  Mr.  Dickey's  statement.  He  told  the  Commission  at  San 
Francisco  in  August,  1904,  that  the  steel  mills  in  this  country  were 
favoring  the  foreigner.    He  said,  amongst  other  things :     ^ 

"  'IN  1900  I  WAS  GOING  THROUGH  A  SHIPYARD  IN  DUNDEE, 
SCOTLAND,  AND  THEY  WERE  BUILDING  A  VESSEL  ALMOST 
A  DUPLICATE  OF  THE  CALIFORNIA,  THAT  WE  WERE  BUILD- 
ING HERE  AT  THE  SAME  TIME,  AND  THEIR  MATERIAL  WAS 
BEING  LANDED  THERE  FROM  A  VESSEL  FROM  NEW  YORK, 
FURNISHED  BY  CARNEGIE  &  CO.,  WHO  WERE  FURNISHING 
THE  MATERIAL  FOR  THE  CALIFORNIA.  THEY  WERE  PAY- 
ING £7  15s.  8d.  PER  TON.  WE  WERE  PAYING  £10  9s.  2d.  IT 
WAS  SUPPLIED  BY  THE  SAME  PEOPLE  AND  THE  DISTANCE 
TRANSPORTED  WAS  ABOUT  THE  SxlME.' 

"These  prices  when  reduced  to  our  currency  made  a  difference  of 
about  $13.80  against  the  American  builder.  It  has  been  estimated  by 
expert  shipbuilders  that  a  vessel  of  8000  tons,  which  is  now  only 
medium  in  size,  will  require  about  3500  tons  of  steel.  At  the  rate 
of  difference  given  by  Mr.  Dickie  the  American  builder  would  pay 
to  the  steel  trust  nearly  $50,000  more  for  the  material  in  his  ship 
than  the  foreigner  pa  id  for  his.  It  is  a  misnomer  to  call  this  a  "profit," 
because  the  steel  was  sold  at  a  profit  to  the  foreigner.  It  is  a  rob- 
bery under  the  guise  of  law,  and  the  men  engaged  in  this  nefarious 
business  are  among  the  most  persistent  advocates  of  subsidy  legis- 
lation." 

Further  on,  he  said: 

"I  here  offer  an  editorial  clipping  from  a  New  York  daily,  The 
Press,  of  the  7th  of  May  of  this  year : 

"  'All  records  in  the  exports  of  iron  and  steel  material  through  New 
York  and  other  Atlantic  seaboard  points  were  eclipsed  last  month 
when  close  on  to  80,000  tons  were  consigned  to  almost  every  part  of 
the  civilized  world.  The  heaviest  increase  was  made  in  the  shipment 
of  steel  billets,  upward  of  35,000  tons  having  gone  abroad  during 
April,  as  compared  toith  24,000  tons  exported  during  the  previous 
month.  THEY  ARE  SOLD  HERE  FOR,  EXPORT  AT  A  PRICE 
AROUND  $18  AT  THE  IVHLLS,  WHEREAS  THE  EXISTING  QUO- 
TATION FOR  BILLETS  FOR  DOMESTIC  CONSUMPTION  IS  $27.' 

"It  has  been  shown  by  recent  testimony  before  the  committee  that 
the  ocean  freight  on  steel  is  about  $2  per  ton,  which  would  make  it 
cost  $20  per  ton  delivered  in  foreign  ports,  against  $27  to  domestic 
purchasers.  This  difference  of  $7  per  ton  makes  the  comfortable 
sum  of  $245,000  extorted  from  the  American  consumer  by  the  steel 
trust  in  the  month  of  Ap7'il  on  the  item  of  steel  billets  shipped  abroad 
from  Atlantic  ports  alorte.  At  the  same  ratio  for  one  year  this  would 
amount  to  $2,740,000.  This  robbery  of  the  American  v/as  going  on  at 
the  very  time  when  the  witnesses  of  the  steel  trust  were  asking  us 
to  believe  that  the  prices  in  Europe  and  America  are  the  same  and 
that  steel  is  not  sold  more  cheaply  for  export  than  for  home  use. 
Now,  what  reliance  can  we  place  on  the  evidence  of  such  witnesses 
in  any  other  statements  they  have  made?  There  is  an  old  Latin 
maxim  familiar  to  every  lawyer,  'Falsus  in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus,^ 
which  fits  this  case.' 

"I  haven't  seen  nor  heard  of  any  denial  of  this  statement  of  the 
the  Press  on  the  8t]i  of  Maj-,  and  received  in  reply  the  following  state- 
large  headlines,  and  is  presumed  to  have  been  made  with  a  full  knowl 
edge  of  the  facts.  But  in  order  to  verify  it  I  wrote  to  the  editor  of 
the  Press  on  the  8th  of  May,  and  received  in  reply  the  following  state- 
ment, furnished  by  tlie  gentlen)an  who  regularly  supplies  the  paper 
with  such  information,  and  whose  reliability  is  umiuestioned.  I  can 
say  that  the  price  in  England  (Wales)  yesterday  for  steel  billets  was 
$22  a  ton.  As  the  freight  between  the  mills  here  and  Wales  is  around 
$4  a  ton,  American  billets  nuist  be  sold  at  $18  for  export,  as  specified 
in  the  news  story,  in  order  to  meet  competition  on  the  other  side. 


PROPOSED  SHIP  SUBSIDY  LEGISLATION.  137 


The  selling  of  billets  for  export  at  the  price  of^$18,  or  around  that 
figure,  in  order  to  meet  the  market  conditions  on  the  other  side  has 
been  going  on  for  a  considerable  time.  Notwithstanding  the  contra- 
dictions of  the  steel  trust  officials,  any  man  posted  in  the  metal 
trades  here  knows  the  fact  of  the  discrepancy  between  the  export 
and  domestic  prices  of  billets,  rails  and,  in  fact,  all  iron  and  steel 
material. 

"Mr.  Hanscom,  of  the  Eastern  Shipbuilding  Company,  New  Lon- 
don, Conn.,  who  appeared  before  us  to  advocate  this  subsidy  legisla- 
tion, stated  that  two  or  three  years  ago  he  had  information  that  steel 
was  shipped  from  here  and  landed  on  the  Clyde  at  $19  or  $20  a  ton, 
when  it  was  being  sold  to  domestic  purchasers  for  $32  to  $38  a  ton. 

"Notwithstanding  this  state  of  affairs,  which  Senator  Gallinger  de- 
nounced as  an  outrage,  nothing  has  been  done  to  remedy  this  evil,  and 
every  proposition  to  revise  the  tariff  schedules  ivhich  makes  possible 
this  outrage  upon  the  American  people  is  met  by  the  'stand-patters' 
with  the  stereotyped  declaration  that  there  is  neither  necessity  nor 
demand  for  revision,  and  the  robbery  proceeds  unchecked  and  un- 
abashed. Gentlemen  can  not  protect  themselves  by  the  comforting 
assurance  that  these  facts  are  not  established.  They  are  proven  by 
the  testimony  of  a  crov/d  of  disinterested  witnesses,  and  are  denied 
by  no  one  except  the  'defendant.'  Any  jury  of  honest  men  in  any 
court  on  such  evidence  would  write  a  verdict  of  'guilty'  in  two 
minutes.  You  say:  'When  the  tariff  needs  revising  its  friends  will 
do  it.'  The  time  is  approaching  when  it  will  be  revised,  not  by  the 
friends  of  the  tariff,  but  by  the  friends  of  the  long-suffering  American 
people." 

THE  DR.  JEKYLL  AND  MR.  HYDE  STAND  OF  THE  "STAND- 

PATTERS." 


On  the  18th  of  April  last  the  whole  world  was  startled,  shocked 
and  horrified  by  the  news  that  San  Francisco,  the  Pearl  of  the 
Pacific,  had  been  practically  wiped  off  of  the  map  by  the  combined 
forces  of  earthquake  and  fire.  The  dispatches  confirmed  the  first 
hurried  reports — it  was  only  too  true — ^the  city  was  destroyed. 
Buildings  lay  in  ruins,  streets  were  effaced,  thousands  of  homes 
in  ashes,  the  public  parks  were  the  dwellings  of  the  sufferers,  the 
earth  their  bed,  the  heavens  their  roof. 

Perhaps  no  call  of  charity  was  ever  heeded  more  promptly  than 
this.  From  Maine  to  Florida  contributions  were  started;  relief 
trains  were  hurried  West;  benefits  were  given;  city  after  city 
appropriated  money  and  supplies;  in  a  word,  the  whole  country 
came  to  the  rescue  of  California.  The  first  wants  of  food  and 
clothes  relieved,  the  citizens  of  the  ruined  city  set  to  work  with  an 
indomitable  courage  to  rebuild  on  far  more  beautiful  lines  their 
wrecked  metropolis.  Thousands  of  tons  of  iron,  steel,  cement, 
lumber,  glass  and  other  building  material  would  be  necessary  and 
must  be  purchased  somewhere.  Naturally  these  people — poorer 
by  millions  of  dollars — would  seek  the  cheapest  market,  and  ex- 
perience had  shown  that  all  the  needed  materials  could  be  pur- 
chased cheaper  abroad  than  at  home,  PROVIDED  THE  DUTY  ON 
IMPORTS  WAS  REMOVED. 

This  was  not  a  matter  of  charity,  simple  contributions  of  money 
and  clothes  could  not  cover  this  question — it  was  a  problem  of 
national  legislation.  Congress,  and  Congress  alone,  had  the 
power  to  remove  the  prohibitive  duties  which  the  Dingley  tariff 
had  laid  upon  these  commodities.  But  would  the  watch-dogs  of 
"protection"  be  charitable  enough  to  allow  this  wall  to  be  torn 


138  PROPOSED    SHIP    SUBSIDY    LEGISLATION. 

down  for  the  benefit  of  their  suffering  fellow-citizens?  The 
Democrats  in  Congress,  alive  to  the  exigencies  of  the  situation, 
voted  money  for  their  relief,  and  were  the  first  to  come  to  the 
rescue  by  introducing  a  bill  giving  drawback  bounties  on  all 
structural  material  imported  and  "actually"  used  in  rebuilding  the 
homes  of  these  sufferers  for  the  space  of  three  years.  In  other 
words,  John  Doe  would  buy  100,000  tons  of  steel  in  Sheffield, 
England,  30  per  cent,  cheaper  than  from  Pittsburg,  import  and 
pay  the  duty  on  it  at  the  port  of  San  Francisco  and,  upon  proof 
that  he  used  this  steel  in  bona-fide  building,  would  receive  back 
the  amount  of  the  duty  paid. 

But  what  was  the  fate  of  this  most  estimable  and  democratic 
measure?  It,  and  all  others  like  it,  shared  the  luck  invariably 
dealt  out  to  any  legislation  which  in  the  least  interferes  with  the 
robber  practices  of  the  steel,  lumber,  cement  and  other  trusts.  A 
Republican  House  referred  it  and  similar  bills  to  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  where  it  was  lulled  to  sleep  to  the  tune  of 
"Stand  Pat,  Oh,  Protectionists,  Stand  Pat." 

But  the  most  marvelous  feature  of  this  uncharitable  proceeding 
was  the  fact  that  not  a  single  member  in  the  House  of  the  Califor- 
nia delegation — a  solid  Republican  body — spoke  a  word,  as  the 
Record  shows,  favorable  to  this  or  any  such  measure,  which  was 
solely  for  their  benefit  and  their  constituents. 

More  than  this,  Mr.  Kahn  (Republican)  on  June  7,  1906,  made 
quite  an  extended  speech  to  show  that  such  a  measure  would  be 
"unconstitutional,"  closing  with  the  following: 

"The  people  of  San  Francisco  want  to  commence  rebuilding  the 
magnificent  City  by  the  Golden  Gate  *  *  *  THE  DELEGATION 
FROM  CALIFORNIA  IN  THIS  HOUSE,  LEARNING  OF  THE  CON- 
STITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS  THAT  WERE  BEING  RAISED 
AGAINST  A  DRAWBACK  BILL,  CONCLUDED  THAT  IT  WERE 
BEST  TO  NOTIFY  OUR  CITIZENS  THAT  SUCH  LEGISLATION 
IS  IMPOSSIBLE,  and,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  failure  of  the  passage  of 

this  bill  WILL  NOT  DELAY  the  rehabilitation  of  San  Francisco." 

*     *     * 

"UNCONSTITUTIONAL"— if  so,  the  Constitution  has  been  violated 
from  the  "fathers"  to  the  present  day,  for  did  not  Congress  enact 
almost  identical  legislation  for  the  relief  of  Chicago  fire  sufferers 
and  those  of  other  cities? 

"IMPOSSIBLE" — since  when  has  it  become  "impossible"  for  Con- 
gress to  come  to  the  rescue  of  suffering  and  needy  United  States  citi- 
zens by  untaxing  imports.  How  can  such  a  course  be  called  "impossi- 
ble" with  the  official  records  for  a  century  showing  that  such  has  been 
done  before. 

"WILL  NOT  DELAY" — the  rehabilitation  of  that  city  when  letters 
have  been  received  from  reputable  citizens  of  San  Francisco  stating 
"that  there  is  now  a  combination  being  formed  in  the  City  of  San 
Francisco  for  the  purpose  of  putting  up  the  prices  *to  the  serious  detri- 
ment of  property  owners  and  home  builders.'  " 

Moreover,  the  numerous  authorities  which  Mr.  Kahn  quoted  to 
show  that  such  an  act  would  be  "unconstitutional"  also  held  that 
Congress  did  not  have  the  power  to  appropriate  money  outright 
for  the  relief  of  American  citizens.  Turning  a  deaf  ear  to  this 
ruling,  Mr.  Kahn  voted  to  appropriate  millions  for  his  con- 
stituents' aid  and  succor.  INCONSISTENT,  that  is  for  the  people 
to  judge. 


PROPOSED    SHIP    SUBSIDY    LEGISLATION.  139 

Such  was  the  attitude  of  the  House  members  of  the  California 
delegation  when  at  Washington.  Now  see  the  change  when  con- 
fronted with  the  accusing  fingers  of  their  constituents  at  home. 

On  September  8  the  Republican  State  Convention  met  in  Cali- 
fornia and  adopted  the  following  resolution  as  a  plank  of  their 
state  platform: 

"Resolved,  That  we  favor  the  enactment  by  Congress  of  an  amend- 
ment to  the  existing  tariff  law  providing  as  a  measure  of  relief  in  San 
Francisco.  That  for  a  period  of  three  years  all  building  material 
may  be  admitted  into  the  port  of  San  Francisco  free  of  all  duty." 

What  a  lightning  change!  "Unconstitutional"  no  longer; 
neither  is  it  "impossible"  to  enact  such  legislation;  the  "will-not- 
delay"  rebuilding  plea  does  not  hold  in  California  as  in  Washing- 
ton. When  driven  on  by  the  Protectionists'  party  whip,  they 
dared  not  vote  to  thus  "tinker  with  the  tariff,"  but  when  bidding 
for  votes  at  home  and  confronted  with  the  terrible  state  of  affairs 
caused  by  the  trust  "hold-up,"  they  ceased  to  be  "stand-patters" 
and  fall  in  line  with  the  Democrats  in  advocating  relief  from 
these  outrageous  "trust  prices."  The  shoe  is  on  another  foot 
now,  and  the  people  of  California  do  not  like  the  footwear  that 
the  trust  offers  them.  And  so  they  declare,  in  no  uncertain  terms, 
for  the  very  thing  which  the  Democrats  offered  to  give  them 
months  ago.  Will  they  get  it?  It  is  extremely  unlikely  as  long 
as  trust-controlled  Republican  leaders  stand  guard  over  the 
Dingley  tariff,  which  prevents  them  from  building  their  homes, 
paving  their  streets,  clothing  their  families,  or  even  feeding 
themselves,  except  at  prices  laid  down  by  the  trusts. 

FREE   LIZARDS  UNDER   DINGLEY    TARIFF,   BUT    NO    FREE 
BUILDING  MATERIAL  FOR  THE  HOMELESS. 

(T.  D.  27549.) 

DRIED  LIZARDS. 

Decision  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  southern  district 

of  New  York  in  Wing  On  Wo  v.  United  States 

(T.  D.  27496)    acquiesced  in. 

Treasury  Department,  August  7,  1906. 
Sir  :  The  Department  is  in  receipt  of  a  report  of  the  United  States 
attorney  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York  in  which  he  states 
that  the  case  of  Wing  On  Wo  v.  United  States  (suit  4154;  T.  D. 
27496)  was  recently  decided  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for 
that  district  adversely  to  the  Government, 

The  merchandise  in  suit  consisted  of  lizards  dressed  and  dried 
while  stretched  on  pieces  of  bamboo.  Duties  were  assessed  thereon 
at  the  rate  of  10  per  cent,  ad  valorem  as  an  unenumerated  unmanu- 
factured article  under  section  6  of  the  act  of  July  24,  1897.  The 
importer  protested,  claiming  free  entry  under  paragraph  548  of  the 
same  act,  under  the  enumeration  for  drugs,  such  as  dried  insects,  etc., 
which  claim  Was  sustained  by  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  in 
this  case  on  the  evidence  presented. 

The  Attorney-General  advises  the  Department  that  no  further 
proceedings  will  be  directed  in  this  case.  You  are  therefore  hefeby 
authorized  to  forward  the  usual  certified  statement  for  a  refund  ol 
the  duties  exacted  in  excess  in  settlement  thereof. 

Respectfully, 

James  B.  Reynolds, 

Assistant  Secretary. 
(39369.) 
Collector  of  Customs,  New  York, 


140  PROPOSED    SHIP    SUBSIDY    LEGISLATION. 

The  people  throughout  the  United  States  demanded,  and  the 
civilized  world  expected,  that  Congress  would  untax,  as  stated, 
imported  structural  material  to  aid  these  earthquake  sufferers 
whenever  they  should  rebuild  in  the  United  States. 

The  newspapers,  with  the  fewest  exceptions,  appealed  to  Con- 
gress.   A  few  are  quoted :  .  * 

Says  a  contemporary; 

"To  reconstruct  San  Francisco  hundreds  of  thousands  of  tons  of 
steel,  millions  of  feet  of  lumber  and  many  thousands  of  barrels  of 
cement  will  be  needed,  to  say  nothing  of  glass  and  other  building 
material.  Steel,  lumber,  cement  and  glass  are  absolute  necessities 
in  vast  quantities  to  rebuild  shops,  factories,  warehouses  and  the 
tenements  of  rich  and  poor  in  San  Francisco.  It  is  a  monstrous 
abuse  of  the  taxing  power  to  impose  heavy  duties  on  these  articles, 
which  can  be  produced  as  cheaply  in  this  country  as  in  any  other  at 
a  profit  to  the  producer.  The  whole  nation  groans  and  sweats  under 
the  burden.  If  there  were  no  tariff  the  excessive  cost  of  transporta- 
tion would  in  any  event  bear  hardly  upon  the  distressed  people  of 
the  Pacific  Coast,  but  in  the  shadow  of  their  great  catastrophe  the 
added  tariff  exactions — $11.20  per  ton  on  steel;  $2  per  thousand  on 
lumber;  eight  cents  a  hundred  pounds  on  cement;  anywhere  from  40 
to  60  per  cent,  on  glass — take  on  a  form  of  barbarous  cruelty." 

There  is  a  general  sentiment  against  subjecting  San  Francisco  to 
the  burdens  of  the  tariff  in  rebuilding.  Even  that  pattest  of  stand- 
patters, Dalzell,  of  Pennsylvania,  is  willing  to  lead  a  movement  to 
free  the  city  of  these  burdens.  And  the  burdens  that  it  is  agreed 
bear  so  heavily  on  San  Francisco,  bear  just  as  heavily  on  every  man 
in  the  United  States  who  builds  or  rents  a  home  or  who  lives  under  a 
roof. — Louisville  Courier  Journal,  May  1,  1906. 

The  Courier  Journal  was  charitable  to  Mr.  Dalzell  He  was,  and 
is,  a  Stand-Patter.  He  and  the  Republican  party  in  Congress  re- 
fused to  enact  any  law  giving  these  sufferers  any  relief  from  the 
oppressive  Dingley  tariff  rates,  while  the  money  he  and  his  party 
voted  out  of  the  Treasury  was  used  to  buy  food  and  clothes.  Not 
a  cent  could  be  applied  to  rebuild  their  homes  in  ashes  and  ruins. 

Compare  for  a  moment  the  Dingley  tariff — a  peace  tariff — with 
what  Mr.  Blaine  said  about  our  Civil  War  tariff,  and  instantly 
reasons  for  tariff  reform  at  once  are  apparent.    Mr.  Blaine  said: 

"Even  in  the  second  year  of  the  Civil  War,  in  which  we  were 
struggling  for  life  rather  than  glory,  we  had  come  to  realize  every 
exaction  ascribed  to  the  British  system.  ( Under  the  Internal  Revenue 
Act  of  July  1,  1862)  we  were  levying  taxes  upon  every  article  which 
enters  into  the  mouth,  or  covers  the  back,  or  is  placed  under  the  foot; 
taxes  on  everything  which  is  pleasant  to  see,  hear,  feel,  smell  or 
taste;  taxes  upon  warmth,  light  and  locomotion;  taxes  upon  every- 
thing on  earth  and  the  waters  under  the  earth;  taxes  on  everything 
that  comes  from  abroad  or  is  groAvn  at  home;  on  the  sauce  whicli 
pampers  man's  appetite,  and  on  the  drug  that  restores  him  to  health ; 
on  the  crime  which  decorates  the  judge  and  the  rope  which  hangs 
the  criminal ;  on  the  poor  man's  salt  and  the  rich  man's  spice ;  on  the 
brass  nails  of  the  coffin  and  the  ribbons  of  the  bride."  . 

"The  system  of  internal  revenue,  of  which  the  foregoing  is  no 
exaggeration,  proved  in  all  respects  effective.  Congress  rendered 
the  taxes  more  palatable  and  less  oppressive  to  the  producers 
<: manufacturers)  by  largely  increasing  the  duties  on  imports  by 
the  tariff  act  of  July  14,  1862,  thus  shutting  out  still  more  con- 
clusively all  competition  from  foreign  fabrics. 

"THE  INCREASED  COST  WAS  CHARGED  TO  THE  CON- 
SUMER." 


THE  STEEL  TRUST  EXPOSED.  141 


PRICE  OF  STEEL  RAILS  "FIXED." 

NO  MORE.  NO   LESS. 

THE   POWER  TO   FIX  AND    UNFIX   PRICES 

ALSO  "FIXED." 

FIXED   PRICE   OF   RAILS  AT  $28. 

New  York,  April  25. — E.  H.  Garry,  chairman  of  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  announced  today 
that  subsidiary  companies  of  that  corporation  have  fixed  the  price  of 
steel  rails  for  1907  at  $28  a  ton.     That  is  the  price  now  prevailing. 

The  Steel  Trust  has  announced  that,  in  spite  of  the  great  demand 
for  rails,  which  would  seem  to  justify  an  advance  in  price,  the  Trust 
will  be  moderate  in  its  exactions  and  stick  to  the  price  of  $28.  That 
is  eight  or  ten  dollars  a  ton  more  than  the  Trust  is  glad  to  accept 
from  foreigners;  it  is  more  than  twice  as  much  as  Charles  Schwab 
has  said  it  cost  to  make  them,  and  it  would  be  impossible  for  the 
Trust  to  get  that  price  if  it  were  not  for  the  tariff.  In  view  of  the 
difficulty  the  "stand-patters"  have  in  keeping  the  tariff  discussion 
down,  an  increase  in  the  price  of  steel  rails  might  cause  an  explosion 
that  would  throw  the  lid  and  the  men  who  are  sitting  on  it  into 
the  air.— Philadelphia  Record,  April  27,  1906. 

And  our  people  pay  the  "fixed"  price  and  are  powerless  under 
the  present  tariff  to  avoid  this  servitude. 


THE  STEEL  TRUST  EXPOSED. 

EVIDENCE  OF  E.  H.  GARY  SHOWN  TO  BE  ENTIRELY 
UNRELIABLE. 

The  Republican  campaign  book  on  page  126-7  endorses  the  evi- 
dence of  E.  H.  Gary,  chairman  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
United  States  Steel  Corporation,  given  before  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  the  Merchant  Marine.  This  evidence  on  export  prices 
was  evidently  cooked  up  for  partisan  purposes  to  show  that  the 
Steel  Trust  is  not  protected  as  highly  as  the  German  Steel  manu- 
facturers. 

The  following  communication  to  the  "Iron  Age"  entirely  de- 
molishes the  Gary  evidence  with  which  the  Republican  Congres- 
sional Committee  attempts  to  blind  the  eyes  of  Republican  voters 
by  putting  false  evidence  in  the  hands  of  its  speakers  and  news- 
papers: 


(FROM  THE  "IRON  AGE,"  SEPTEMBER  22.) 
To  the  Editor:  As  is  shown  in  the  report  of  "The  Iron  Age"  of 
April  19,  lOOG,  Chairman  E.  H.  Gary  of  the  United  States  Steel  Cor- 
poration has  made  partially  erroneous  statements  before  the  House 
Committee  on  the  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries  on  April  11  bearing 
on  home  and  export  prices  of  the  German  steel  industry  and  on  the 
general  industrial  conditions  in  Germany.  Mr.  Gary  has  stated  as  a 
fact  that  the  home  prices  of  the  makers  of  other  steel  producing  coun- 
tries are  generally  higher  than  the  home  prices  of  the  manufacturers 


142  THE  STEEL  TRUST  EXPOSED. 

in  the  United  States.  This  is  not  correct  so  far  as  Germany  is  con- 
cerned; the  German  domestic  prices  are,  on  the  contrary,  considerably 
lower  than  the  American. 

For  the  month  of  March,  1906,  the  American  prices  were  per  gross 
ton : 

Billets , $27.00  to  $33.00 

Rails 28.00 

Bars 33.60  to     41.78 

Sheets 44.80  to    .58.24 

Calculated  in  dollars,  the  domestic  prices  in  Germany  for  the  same 
month  of  March,  1906,  were  considerably  lower,  as  follows: 

Billets $22.98 

Rails 27.09 

Bars $28.82  to     29.50 

Sheets 30.24  to    32.76 

The  statement  was  furthermore  made  with  reference  to  Germany 
that  its  steel  industry  enjoys  more  extensive  and  better  tariff  protec- 
tion than  that  of  the  United  States.  That,  too,  is  not  correct.  The 
following  comparison  shows,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  American  rates 
are  all  higher  than  the  German  rates: 

RATES  OF  DUTY  PER  GROSS  TON. 

United   States.  Germany. 

Steel  ingots,  blooms,  billets  and  steel 

bars  valued  at  1  to  l%e.  per  lb. .  .$6.72  to  $13.44  $3.63 

Steel    rails 7.84  6.29 

Iron  bars,  rounds,  hoops  and  bands.  .11.20  to     17.92  6.29 

Plates  and  boiler  plates 11.20  to     24.64  $7.26  to  10.89 

Mr.  Gary's  statement  before  the  committee  with  reference  to  the 
spread  in  Germany  between  domestic  and  export  prices  for  rails  and 
shapes  is  also  inaccurate.  According  to  the  chairman  of  the  St^el  Cor- 
poration, the  relation  between  the  domestic  and  foreign  prices  is  $30 
to  $24  for  rails,  and  $33.60  to  $28  for  beams.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in 
March,  1906,  the  German  domestic  price  for  rails  was  $27.09  and  the 
export  price  $25.40  to  $26.61;  for  shapes  the  German  domestic  price 
was  $26.61  and  the  export  price  w^as  $25.50. 

A  protest  must  also  be  entered  against  Mr.  Gary's  assertion  that  in 
Germany  they  do  not  pay  more  than  one-half  the  American  wages. 
Besides  their  outlays  for  private  workmen's  welfare  work,  the  German 
manufacturers  must  bear  as  an  addition  to  the  wages  public  and  social 
charges  of  about  100  to  150  marks  per  man,  so  that  the  German  w^ork- 
man  is  protected  against  the  dangers  of  old  age,  sickness,  invaliding 
and  accident,  and  thus  has  an  important  pecuniary  advantage  over 
the  American  workman.  Quite  irrespective  of  this,  the  German  wages 
are  higher  than  estimated  by  Mr.  Gary.  On  the  contrary,  German 
w^ages  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry  are  at  least  two-thirds  of  the 
American  wages.  The  fact  must  be  considered,  too,  that  the  German 
manufacturers  try  to  hold  their  men  in  bad  times,  while  the  American 
manufacturers  dismiss  their  men  when  there  is  scarcity  of  work. 

All  that  Mr.  Gary  states  concerning  the  commercial  policy  of  the 
G;irman  Government  and  the  alleged  payment  of  export  bounties  by 
it  is  entirely  wrong.  The  German  Government  does  not  pay  any  ex- 
port bounties  to  the  iron  industry.  There  can  be  no  question  what- 
ever of  an  "artificial  stimulation"  of  the  industry'  by  the  State  in 
Germany. 

STAHLWERKS-VERBAND  AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. 

Dusseldorf,  Germany,  August  22,  1906. 


THE    STEEL    TRUST   EXPOSED.  143 

RAISE  PRICE  OF  TOOLS. 

POWER  TO   FIX  AND  UNFIX  PRICES. 

TO   MAKE  TOOLS  5   PER  CENT.  HIGHER. 

Atlantic  City,  N.  J.,  May  3. — The  National  Machine  Tool  Builders' 
Association,  in  convention  here,  have  decided  on  a  5  per  cent,  raise 
in  the  price  of  tools  next  year. — ^New  York  Times,  May  4,  1906. 


EXPORT  PRICES  CUT. 

OBLIGED     TO     BUY     STEEL     ABROAD— OHIO      ENGINEER, 

UNABLE     TO     SECURE      MATERIAL     HERE,     GOES     TO 

EUROPE  FOR  SUPPLIES— HE  FINDS  IT  IN  GERMANY 

—CHARTERS  A  BRITISH  VESSEL  AND  EXPECTS 

THE  TOTAL  COST  TO  BE  CHEAPER. 

( Special  Cable  to  the  Herald. ) 

The  Herald's  European  edition  publishes  the  following  from 
its  correspondent: 

London,  Wednesday. 

THE  SCARCITY  OF  STEEL  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  IN 
COMPARISON  WITH  THE  DEMAND  AND  THE  INABILITY  OF 
STEEL  CONCERNS  TO  FILL  ORDERS  FOR  QUICK  DELIVERY 
ARE  DRIVING  MORE  STRUCTURAL  STEEL  BUYERS  ABROAD. 

MR.  WARWICK,  A  CONTRACTING  ENGINEER  IN  OHIO  WHO 
WAS  UNABLE  TO  GET  AN  ORDER  FOR  STRUCTURAL  STEEL 
FILLED  IN  THE  TIME  REQUIRED  BY  HIS  CONTRACT,  WENT 
TO  GERMANY  AND  PLACED  AN  ORDER  THERE  FOR  $40,000 
TO  $50,000  WORTH  OF  MATERIAL.  THEN  HE  CAME  TO  LON- 
DON AND  CHARTERED  A  VESSEL  TO  TAKE  IT  TO  AMERICA. 

HE  EXPECTS  TO  HAVE  HIS  STEEL  DELIVERED  IN  OHIO 
CHEAPER  THAN  IT  WOULD  HAVE  COST  HIM  IN  THE  UNITED 
STATES. 

AMERICANS  TO   INSTALL    RUSSIAN   TELEPHONES. 

St.  Petersburg,  November  16,  1902. 
An  American  tender  to  install  underground  telephones  in  the  city 
for  315,000  rubles  has  been  accepted  by  the  authorities.     The  tender 
was  on  lower  terms  and  easier  conditions  of  payment  than  the  offers 
of  other  bidders  for  the  work. 

Mr.  Henry  W.  Lamb,  a  prominent  sheet-metal  manufacturer  of 
Boston,  testified  before  the  Industrial  Commission  as  follows: 

"The  tariff  trusts  sell  all  their  goods  abroad  cheaper  than  they  do 
here,  and  this  they  are  enabled  to  do  by  the  protective  tariff.  If 
goods  are  imported  into  this  country  a  duty  must  be  paid,  which 
enhances  the  price;  the  trusts  are  therefore  able  to  a  certain  extent 
to  extort  from  the  consumers  here  more  than  they  can  secure  if  they 
sell  abroad.  They  do  desire  to  sell  abroad,  and  they  therefore  sell 
abroad  at  a  much  lower  price  than  to  corresponding  consumers  in 
this  country. 


144  WHAT  SENATOR  DEPEW  SAYS. 


WHAT  SENATOR  DEPEW  SAYS  FIFTY  MEN  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES  CAN  DO. 

"Fifty  men  in  these  United  States  have  it  in  their  power,  by  reason 
of  the  wealth  which  they  control,  to  come  together  within  twenty 
four  hours  and  arrive  at  an  understanding  by  which  every  wheel  of 
trade  and  commerce  may  be  stopped  and  every  electric  key  struck 
dumb.  Those  fifty  men  can  paralyze  the  whole  country,  for  they 
can  control  the  circulation  of  the  currency  and  create  a  panic  when- 
ever they  win."— Pilot,  Oct.,  1895. 

Mr.  Depew  is  a  leading  Republican  who  has  always  stood  for 
laws  that  make  this  condition  entirely  possible.  Does  it  in  1906 
Lake  fifty  men  to  "hold  up"  85,000,000  of  people? 

JEFFERSON   ON   PROPERTY. 

One  hundred  years  ago,  when  Thomas  Jefferson  was  in  Paris 
watching  the  progress  of  the  French  Revolution,  he  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  a  great  evil  to  allow  a  few  people  in  a 
country  to  hold  or  control  the  bulk  of  the  property. 

In  a  letter  written  at  that  time  to  his  friend,  the  Rev.  James 
Madison,  Jefferson  said: 

"I  am  conscious  that  an  equal  division  of  property  is  imprac- 
ticable, but  the  consequences  of  this  enormous  inequality  produce 
great  misery  to  the  bulk  of  mankind.  Legislators  cannot  invent 
too  many  devices  for  subdividing  property,  only  taking  care  to  let 
the  subdivisions  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  natural  affections  of  the 
human  mind.  The  descent  of  propert}^  of  every  kind,  therefore,  to 
all  the  children,  or  to  all  the  brothers  and  sisters,  or  other  rela- 
tions, in  equal  degree,  is  a  politic  measure  and  a  practicable  one. 
Another  means  of  silently  lessening  the  inequality  of  property  is  to 
exempt  all  from  taxation  below  a  certain  point,  and  to  tax  the 
higher  portions  or  property  in  geometrical  progression  as  they  rise. 
Whenever  there  is  in  any  country  uncultivated  lands  and  unem- 
ployed poor,  it  is  clear  that  the  laws  of  property  have  been  so  far 
extended  as  to  violate  natural  right.  The  earth  is  given  as  a 
common  stock  for  man  to  labor  and  live  on.  If  for  the  encour- 
agement of  industry  we  allow  it  to  be  appropriated,  we  must  take 
care  tliat  other  employment  be  provided  to  those  excluded  from  the 
i'P[)ropriation.  If  we  do  not,  the  fundamental  riglit  to  labor  the 
eartli  returns  to  the  unemployed.  It  is  too  soon  yet  in  our  country 
to  s.iy  that  every  man  who  cannot  find  employment,  but  who  can 
llnd  uncultivated  1  vnd,  shall  be  at  liberty  to  cultivate  it,  paying  a 
moderate  rent.  But  it  is  not  too  soon  to  provide  by  every  possible 
me  HIS  that  as  few  as  possible  shall  be  witliout  a  little  portion  of 
bind.     The  small  landholders  are  the  most  precious  p.irt  of  a  State." 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  we  are  drifting  away  from  these  ideas  of 
t'le  father  of  American  democracy.  We  liave  killed  the  income  tax, 
and  our  whole  tax  system  boars  more  heavily  upon  the  poor  than  it 
does  upon  the  rich. 

We  have  adopted  Jefferson's  ideas  as  to  the  descent  of  property, 
but  we  allow  great  corporations  and  alien  landlords  to  hold  more 
th.an  their  fair  share  of  the  lands  of  the  country.  Everything  pos- 
sible should  be  done  to  make  it  easy  for  a  poor  man  to  get  a  home 
or  a  farm.  Home  owners  make  good  citizens  and  good  citizens  con- 
stitute a  State.— .4*707? fa  Constitution,  Aug.  1,  1895. 


BRYAN  ON  ROOSEVELT.  145 


BRYAN  ON  ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATION. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Sept.  12,  1906. — A  tremendous  ovation  was  ten- 
dered William  J.  Bryan  by  the  12,000  people  gathered  in  the 
Coliseum  last  night  when  he  stepped  upon  the  platform  and  took 
his  seat.  The  ovation  continued  four  minutes  and  was  finally 
silenced  by  National  Democratic  Committeeman  William  A.  Roth- 
well,  who  cut  short  his  speech  of  introduction  and  presented  Mr. 
Bryan  with  a  wave  of  his  hand. 

Mr.  Bryan  said  in  part: 

"You  have  cheered  enough  to  cheer  my  heart,  and  I  am  glad  to 
be  here.  I  have  been  trying  to  find  home  for  more  than  a  week 
and  I  have  found  it  so  homelike  everywhere  that  I  can  liardly 
tell  where  I  live. 

ROOSEVELT  APPROPRIATES   DEMOCRATIC  POLICIES. 

"Now,  I  want  to  show  you  it  is  better  to  trust  the  Democratic 
principles' to  the  Democratic  party  than  to  trust  them  to  one  man 
whose  party  denounces  him  for  following  them.  I  want  to 
remind  you  that  the  most  popular  act  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  adminis- 
tration was  his  bringing  peace  between  two  nations.  He  settled 
the  coal  strike  after  a  loss  of  $99,000,000  to  employers,  employes 
and  the  public.  It  was  a  grand  act.  I  applaud  him  for  it.  But 
wliere  did  he  get  his  doctrine — in  the  Republican  platform?  No. 
He  got  it  from  the  Democratic  platform  and  I  wrote  the  plank 
myself.  If  he  could  gain  popularity  by  settling  one  strike  that 
cost  $99,000,000,  why  ought  not  our  party  have  some  credit  for 
proposing  a  plan  which  if  put  into  a  law,  would  have  made  the 
strike  unnecessary?  Why  hasn't  the  Republican  party  followed 
it  up  by  making  a  national  law  that  will  make  it  unnecessary  for 
a  man  to  starve  his  wife  and  children  in  order  to  get  justice?  If 
the  President  can  become  the  only  popular  man  in  the  Republican 
party  because  he  does  something  spasmodically  along  Democratic 
lines,  what  would  be  the  popularity  of  the  man  who  does  some- 
thing and  has  always  been  a  Democrat? 

"Where  did  Mr.  Roosevelt  find  his  mandate  for  his  action 
regarding  the  rate  bill?  He  had  to  go  to  the  Democratic  platform. 
The  most  important  part  of  the  Elkins  bill  is  the  penitentiary 
sentence  for  its  violation. 

"The  railroads  have  been  the  most  corrupting  influence  in 
politics  in  the  past  twenty  years.  By  the  use  of  passes  they  have 
packed  conventions.  This  law  was  suggested  by  the  Democratic 
party.  I  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  talk  on  railroads  again,  but 
tonight  I  want  to  impress  it  upon  you  that  the  railroad  question 
solution  was  the  product  of  the  Democratic  party. 

"The  President  has  now  been  in  office  almost  five  years.  How 
many  trust  magnates  are  in  the  penitentiary?  We  have  a  great 
many  trusts  in  this  country  violating  the  law.  My  friends,  I  ask 
you  to  figure  out  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  trust  magnates 
imprisoned  during  the  past  five  years,  how  many  generations  will 
it  take  to  solve  the  trust  question?" 


146 


HISTORY  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 


HISTORY  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 

Beginning  in  the  44th  Congress  (1876)  down  to  1887,  when  the 
Commerce  Act -became  the  law,  the  Democrats  in  Congress,  led 
by  that  great  lawyer  and  statesman.  Judge  Reagan,  fought  for 
railroad  legislation. 

Two  or  three  Democratic  Houses  passed  the  Reagan  bills,  and 
sent  them  to  a  Republican  Senate,  which  killed  them.  Finally, 
the  encroachments  by  the  railroads  became  so  great  that  the 
people  throughout  the  country  demanded  proper  legislation,  and 
at  once. 

As  shown  by  the  printed  resolution  in  the  Congressional  Record 
(Mr.  Reagan's  Speech),  the  Grangers  in  the  State  of  Illinois  met 
and  in  convention  condemned  Senator  CuUom,  Chairman  of  the 
Commerce  Committee  of  the  Senate,  for  defeating  the  Reagan 
hills,  with  the  result  that  the  Cullom  bill  was  reported,  passed 
the  Senate,  came  to  the  House,  was,  properly,  referred  to  the 
House  Committee,  and  the  House  substituted,  for  the  Cullom  Bill, 
the  Reagan  or  House  bill.  Later  conferees  were  appointed,  but 
Congress  adjourned  without  an  agreement  being  reached.  At  the 
succeeding  session  an  agreement  was  reached  and  the  Cullom- 
Reagan  or  Substitute  bill,  composed  of  features  of  both  bills, 
passed  both  Houses,  and  became  the  Commerce  Act  of  1887,  which 
Mr.  Cleveland  approved  February  4,  1887. 

When  the  Conference  report  was  called  up  on  January  14,  1887, 
in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Hale  moved  to  recommit  the  bill,  but  this  was 
defeated  by  the  following  vote:     nays,  36;   yeas,  25. 


The  vote 

was: 

Ayes— 25. 

Aldiich, 

Frye, 

Mitchell, 

Piatt, 

Blair, 

Gray,   - 

of  Oregon 

,  Sawyer, 

Brown, 

Hale, 

Mitchell, 

Sewell, 

Cameron, 

Hampton, 

of  Pennsylvania 

.  Sherman, 

Chance, 

Hawley, 

Morgan, 

Spooner, 

Cheney, 

Hoar, 

Morrill, 

Williams. 

Evarts, 

Mahone, 

Payne, 
Nays— 36. 

Allison, 

Cullom, 

Jones, 

Sanesbury, 

Beck, 

Dolph, 

of  Arkansas,  Teller, 

Berry, 

Edmunds, 

Jones, 

Vance. 

Blackburn, 

Eustis, 

of  Missouri,  Vest, 

Bowen, 

Fair, 

McMillin, 

Walthall, 

Call, 

George, 

Manderson, 

Whitthorne, 

Cockrell, 

Gibson, 

Palmer, 

Willson, 

Coke, 

Gorman, 

Plumb, 

of  Iowa, 

Colquitt, 

Harris, 

Pugh, 

Wilson, 

Conger, 

Ingalls,, 

Sabin, 

of  Maryland. 

This  Cullom-Reagan  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  the  following 
vote:    yeas,  43;  nays,  15. 

The  nay  vote  was: 


Aldrich, 

Chance, 

Hoar,                     Payne, 

Blair, 

Cheney, 

Mitchell,                Piatt, 

Brown, 

Evarts, 

of  Pennsylvania.  Williams. 

Cameron, 

Hampton, 

Morrill, 

— Congressional  Record,  49th  Congress,  2nd  Session,  Vol.  18,  Part  1, 
P.  859. 


CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887.       147 


CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 

The  Commerce  Act  of  1887  was  a  compound  measure  made  up 
from  the  Cullom  and  Reagan  bills.  The  conferees  of  the  Senate, 
Messrs.  Cullom,  Isham  G.  Harris  (Dem.),  and  Mr.  Piatt  (Rep), 
of  Connecticut,  dissenting,  made  a  report  to  the  Senate.  In 
doing  so,  Mr.  Cullom  said: 

INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 

Mr.  President,  during  the  last  days  of  the  last  session  of  Congress 
a  conference  was  appointed  by  the  two  House  upon  the  bill  (S.  1532) 
to  regulate  commerce.  The  conferees  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  have 
instructed  me  to  make  a  report,  which  I  send  to  the  desk. 

The  President  pro  tempore.    The  conference  report  will  be  read. 

The  Chief  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

"The  committee  of  conference  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two 
Houses  on  the  amendment  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the  bill 
(S.  1532)  to  regulate  commerce  having  met,  after  full  and  free  con- 
ference, have  agreed  to  recommend,  and  do  recommend  to  their 
respective  Houses  as  follows:" 

Mr.  Cullom.  The  conferees  report  an  amendment  to  tlie  Senate 
bill  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute. 

P.  171.     The  conference  report  is  as  follows: 

The  committee  of  conference  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two 
Houses  on  the  amendment  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the 
bill  (S.  1532)  to  regulate  commerce,  having  met,  after  full  and  free 
conference  have  agreed  to  recommend,  and  do  recommend,  to  their 
respective  Houses  as  follows: 

That  the  house  recede  from  its  amendment  and  agree  to  the  bill 
of  the  Senate,  with  the  following  amendment  thereto,  in  the  nature 
of  a  substitute,  and  that  the  Senate  agree  to  the  same: 

AMENDMENT. 

Strike  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause  and  insert  the  following: 
— Congressional  Record,  49th  Congress,  2nd  Session,  Vol.  18,  Part  1, 
P.  169. 

Then  followed  the  bill  as  it  passed  both  houses  and  became 
law — the  Commerce  Act  of  1887. 

STATEMENT   OF  CONFEREES   ON   THE    PART   OF  THE 
HOUSE. 

(Required  by  Rule  XXIX.) 

The  House  conferees  on  the  disagreeing  votes  between  the  two 
Houses  on  the  bill  of  the  Senate  "to  regulate  commerce,"  and  the 
bill  of  the  House  to  "regulate  commerce  among  the  States,  and 
j)revent  unjust  discrimination  by  common  carriers,"  make  the  follow- 
ing detail  statement  of  the  changes  between  the  House  bill  and  the 
substitute  herewith  appended. 

The  action  of  the  House  being  to  adopt  a  single  amendment,  your 
committee,  without  attempting  to  call  attention  to  the  precise  changes 
made  in  each  section  of  the  bill,  report  to  the  House  the  substance 
and  effect  of  the  changes  made  as  follows: 

The  bill  of  the  House  applied  only  to  the  transportation  of  freight, 
and  the  bill  as  adopted  embraces  the  transportation  of  passengers  as 
well  as  freight. 


148        CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 

The  bill  of  the  House  was  limited  to  the  regulation  of  such  trans- 
portation on  railroads.  The  bill  as  reported  provides  for  the  regula-^ 
tion  of  the  transportation  of  property  partly  by  railroad  and  partly' 
by  water,  when  both  are  used  under  common  control,  management, 
or  arrangement  for  a  continuous  carriage  or  shipment  from  one  State 
or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  or  the  Distict  of  Columbia,  to  any 
other  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

The  bill  which  we  report  defines  the  term  "railroad,"  as  used  in 
it,  to  include  all  bridges,  ferries,  used  or  operated  with  any  railroad, . 
which  is  in  addition  to  the  provisions  of  the  House  bill. 

The  second  section  of  the  substitute  bill  adopts  substantially  the 
provision  of  the  House  bill  against  discrimination  by  special  rates, 
rebates,  drawbacks,  and  other  devices,  and  declares  that  any  one 
making  such  discrimination  shall  be  guilty  of  unjust  discrimination, 
which  is  hereby  prohibited  and  declared  unlawful. 

The  third  section  of  the  substitute  embraces  substantially  the 
provisions  of  the  bill  of  the  House,  in  requiring  equal  facilities  and 
advantages  for  all  shippers,  without  exception,  and  has  a  provision 
requiring  equal  facilities  for  the  interchange  of  traffic  with  all  other 
railroads  for  the  carriage  of  property  and  passengers,  and  forbids  any 
discrimination  by  one  railroad  in  the  facilities  furnished  against  any 
other  railroad.  It  contains  a  clause  declaring  that  this  act  shall 
not  be  construed  as  requiring  such  common  carrier  to  give  the  use 
of  its  tracks  or  terminal  facilities  to  any  common  carrier  engaged  in 
like  business. 

The  fourth  section  adopts  substantially  the  provisions  of  the  House 
bill  on  the  long  and  short  haul,  with  the  following  proviso:  That 
upon  application  to  the  commission  appointed  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act  such  common  carrier  may,  in  special  cases,  after  investigation 
by  the  commission,  be  authorized  to  charge  less  for  a  longer  than  for 
a  shorter  distance  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  property, 
and  that  the  commission  may,  from  time  to  time,  prescribe  the 
extent  to  which  such  common  carrier  may  be  relieved  from  the 
operation  of  this  section. 

The  fifth  section  of  the  substitute  bill  is  a  copy  of  the  clause  in  the 
House  bill  prohibiting  pooling,  with  an  amendment  striking  out  the 
words  of  the  House  bill  "by  dividing,"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof 
the  words  "or  to  divide,"  and  with  the  addition  of  the  words  in  line  3, 
after  the  word  "combination"  "with  any  other  common  carrier  or 
carriers." 

The  sixth  section  is  a  substitute  for  the  provisions  of  the  House 
and  Senate  bills  in  relation  to  the  publication  of  schedules  showing 
the  rates,  fares,  and  charges  for  the  transportation  of  passengers 
and  property.  Instead  of  requiring  the  rates  to  be  posted  up,  as  was 
provided  in  the  House  bill,  it  requires  that,  after  ninety  days  from 
the  passage  of  the  act,  every  common  carrier  subject  to  its  provisions 
shall  have  printed,  and  keep  for  public  inspection,  schedules  showing 
such  rates,  fares,  and  charges,  and,  in  addition  to  requiring  the 
railroads  to  give  publicity  at  all  of  the  depots  on  their  several  lines 
it  gives  authority  to  the  commission,  where  it  is  proper  and  necessary 
to  require  them  to  give  publicity  to  their  rates  to  other  places  beyond 
the  lines  of  their  several  railroads. 

It  also  provides  that  the  rates,  fares,  and  charges  shall  not  be 
raised  except  after  ten  days  of  public  notice,  but  that  they  may  be 
reduced  without  previous  public  notice;  the  notice,  however,  shall  be 
simultaneous  with  the  reduction  itself,  and  it  requires  that  all 
common  carriers  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  file  with 
the  commission  provided  for  in  the  bill  copies  of  the  schedules  which 
have  been  established,  and  shall  promptly  notify  said  commission 
of  all  changes  made  in  the  same;  and  that  they  shall  file  with  the 
commission  copies  of  all  contracts,  arrangements,  or  agreements  with 
other  common  carriers  in  relation  to  traffic  affected  by  the  provisions 
of  this  bill;  and  in  cases  where  passengers  and  freights  pass  over 
continuous  lines  or  routes  operated  by  more  than  one  common  carrier, 
and    the   several    common    carriers    operating    such    lines    of   routes 


CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887.         149 

establish  joint  tariff  of  rates  or  fares  or  charges  for  such  continuous 
lines  or  routes,  copies  of  such  joint  tariffs  shall  also  be  filed  with  the 
commission,  and  made  public,  if  so  directed  by  the  commission. 

The  section  also  provides  that  where  common  carriers  subject  to i 
its  provisions  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  file  or  publish  its  schedules 
of  tariffs  or  rates  and  fares,  or  any  part  of  the  same,  such  common 
carrier  shall,  in  addition  to  the  penalties  herein  prescribed,  be  subject 
to  a  writ  of  mandamus,  to  be  issued  by  any  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States,  in  any  judicial  district  wherein  the  principal  office 
of  the  common  carrier  is  situated,  or  wherein  such  offense  may  be 
committed,  requiring  a  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  act. 

The  seventh  section  of  the  substitute  bill  contains  substantially 
the  provisions  of  the  first  part  of  the  second  section  of  the  House  bill 
in  relation  to  the  continuous  carriage  of  property  and  persons  from 
the  place  of  shipment  to  the  place  of  destination. 

The  eighth  section  of  the  substitute  bill  contains  the  substance  of 
the  seventh  section  of  the  House  bill  in  regard  to  damages  and 
counsel's  fees,  but  expressed  in  somewhat  different  language. 

The  ninth  section  of  the  substitute  bill  is  a  new  section,  which 
provides  that  persons  claiming  to  have  been  damaged  by  the  action 
of  common  carriers  may  proceed  for  recovery  of  their  damages  either 
in  the  courts  of  the  United  States  or  before  the  commission  herein 
provided  for,  as  they  may  elect,  but  not  before  both  tribunals.  This 
section,  which  gives  jurisdiction  to  courts  of  the  United  States,  does 
not  give  jurisdiction  in  civil  suits  to  the  State  courts,  as  was  pro- 
vided for  in  the  House  bill. 

This  section  of  the  substitute  bill  also  provides  that  the  courts 
shall  have  power  to  compel  any  director,  officer,  receiver,  trustee, 
or  agent  of  the  corporation  or  company  defendant  in  such  suit  to 
attend,  appear,  and  testify  in  such  case,  and  may  compel  the  produc- 
tion of  the  books  and  papers  of  such  corporation  or  company  party 
to  any  such  suit ;  and  it  provides  further  that  the  claim  that  any  such 
testimony  or  evidence  may  tend  to  criminate  the  person  giving  such 
evidence  shall  not  excuse  such  witness  from  testifying;  but  that 
such  evidence  or  testimony  shall  not  be  used  against  such  person  on 
the  trial  of  any  criminal  proceeding. 

_  The  tenth  section  of  the  substitute  bill  makes  it  a  penal  offense  to 
violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  is  substantially  the 
eighth  section  of  the  House  bill,  except  that  it  puts  the  maximum 
of  the  fine  which  may  be  imposed  at  the  sum  of  $5,000  instead  of 
$2,000,  as  was  provided  for  by  the  House  bill. 

The  eleventh  and  subsequent  sections  to  the  twenty-first,  inclusive, 
of  the  substitute  bill  contain  the  substance  of  the  Senate's  bill  pro- 
viding for  a  commission,  except  as  modified  by  the  provisions  of 
the  substitute  bill  herein  cited. 

It  provides  for  a  commission  to  consist  of  five  persons  whose  term 
of  office  shall  be  for  six  years,  except  for  tne  first  appointments, 
which  are  to  be  for  two,  three,  four,  five,  and  six  years.  The  members 
of  this  commission  are  to  be  appointed  by  the  President  by  and  with 
the  advice  of  the  Senate.  Their  principal  office  shall  be  in  Washing- 
ton, but  they  may  hold  sessions  at  other  places  than  Washington, 
and  a  single  member  of  the  commission  may  take  testimony  anywhere, 
as  may  be  directed  by  the  commission. 

These  commissioners  have  salaries  of  $7,500  each.  The  commission 
has  the  power  to  appoint  a  secretary,  with  an  annual  salary  of  $3,500, 
and  has  authority  to  employ  and  fix  the  compensation  of  such  other 
employes  as  it  may  find  necessary  to  the  proper  performance  of  its 
duties,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

The  nineteenth  section  of  the  Senate's  bill,  providing  for  a  reference 
of  the  question  of  pooling  to  the  commission,  is  not  embraced  in  this 
substitute. 

Section  22  of  the  substitute  bill,  among  other  things,  provides  that 
nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  in  any  way  abridge  or  alter  the 
remedies  now  existing  at  common  law  or  by  statute,  but  that  the 
provisions  of  this  act  are  in  addition  to  such  remedies,  with  a  proviso 
that  no  pending  litigation  shall  in  any  way  be  affected  by  this  act. 


150         CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 

Section  24  of  the  substitute  bill  provides  that  the  act  shall  go  into 
effect  sixty  days  after  its  passage,  as  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee 
it  was  deemed  best  to  give  the  railroads  sufficient  time  to  prepare 
their  schedules  and  to  modify  their  management  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  bill.  The  appointment  of  the  commission, 
however,  is  to  be  made  at  once,  as  it  has  to  be  organized,  and  as  said 
schedules  of  rates  and  charges  have  to  be  filed  with  said  commission. 

J.  H.  REAGAN, 
CHARLES  F.  CRISP, 
A.  J.  WEAVER, 

Managers  on  the  part  of  the  House. 

President  Cleveland  approved  the  bill  and  it  became  the  law. 
SUPREME    COURT    DECISIONS. 

March  30,  1896.  For  the  first  time  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  decided  that  Congress  had  not  clothed  the  Inter- 
state Commission  with  power  to  unfix  and  fix  rates,  although 
that  body  had  since  1887,  when  the  law  was  approved  by  Mr. 
Cleveland,  exercised  the  right  to  set  aside  and  fix  rates  in  proper 
proceedings.  In  exactly  three  months  and  eight  days  after  this 
decision,  the  Democratic  party  (July  8,  1896)  nominated  Wm.  J. 
Bryan  for  President,  and  on  this  question  declared:  • 

DEMOCRATS  FIRST  AGAIN. 

"The  absorption  of  wealth  by  the  few,  the  consolidation  of  our  rail- 
road systems,  and  formation  of  trusts  and  pools  require  stricter  con- 
trol by  the  Federal  Government  of  those  arteries  of  commerce.  Vve 
demand  the  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  Interstate  Commission, 
and  such  restrictions  and  guarantees  in  the  control  of  railroads  as 
will  protect  the  people  from  robbery  and  oppression." 

The  Republican  platform  of  1896  was  silent  on  this  subject. 
Since  then  and  previous  thereto,  the  Democratic  party  has  con- 
tinuously demanded  railroad  legislation. 

HISTORY  RAILROAD  LAW,  1906. 

The  present  Congress  enacted  a  railroad  law,  amending  the 
Act  of  1887.  It  would  have  been  law,  had  the  Republicans  been 
so  disposed,  years  ago. 

So  controlled  by  the  railroads  were  many  of  the  Republican 
Senators,  that  this  bill  could  not  have  passed  this  (59th)  Congress 
without  the  unanimous  action  of  the  Democrats,  and  the  Presi- 
dent's "big  stick,"  which  drove  and  kept  enough  Republican 
Senators  in  line,  to  pass  it.  At  a  very  acute  stage  of  the  contest 
the  President  found  it  necessary  to  request  a  conference  with 
leading  Democratic  Senators.  They  gladly  conferred  with  him 
and  the  press  made  great  note  of  this  unusual  act.  His  position 
at  that  time  was  that  which  for  years  the  Democrats  had  occupied, 
but  he  was  forced  by  the  opposition  in  his  own  party  to  give 
ground,  and  to  break  faith  with  his  Democratic  conferees  by 
consenting  to  the  "broad  court  review." 

In  this  way,  the  present  law — the  very  best  that  the  people 
could  get  from  a  Republican  Congress — was  passed.     Nothing 


CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887.        151 

was  left  undone  by  the  Democrats  in  either  House  that  could 
possibly  and  honorably  force  an  unwilling  Republican  Senate  to 
act. 

If  the  Republican  Senate  had  done  half  its  duty,  there  would 
have  been  a  railroad  bill  passed  into  law  long  before  1887. 

The  Republican  party  has  been  in  complete  control  of  the 
Government  since  March  4,  1897,  and  is  specially  chargeable  with 
the  failure  to  amend,  broaden  and  strengthen  the  Act  of  1887. 
There  had  been  two  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  (March  30, 
1896,  and  March  24,  1897)  holding  that  the  Commission  had 
not  been  given  the  power  by  Congress  to  fix  and  unfix  rates. 
Other  decisions  during  and  since  this  time  by  the  same  court  had 
nullified  some  of  the  most  valuable  powers  theretofore  exercised 
by  the  Commission  under  the  Act  of  1887,  yet  the  Republican 
party  during  all  this  time  have  failed  and  refused  to  enact 
legislation  covering  the  rate  question,  and  other  evils  annually 
pointed  out  by  the  Commission,  and  by  Democrats  in  each 
Congress. 

The  Townsend-Esch  bill  was  reported  last  Congress.  It  passed 
the  House.  It  was  a  Republican  measure.  While  notoriously 
incomplete  and  insufficient,  it  had  some  merit.  It  went  to  a 
Republican  Senate,  and  as  usual,  died. 

The  Democrats  in  the  House  tried  to  amend  this  bill  to  make 
it  a  better  law,  but  without  avail.  They  then  voted  for  it,  as 
the  best  that  could  be  passed  in  a  Republican  House,  and  insuffi- 
cient as  it  was,  it  was  too  much  for  a  Republican  Senate  to  pass. 

That  Senate  had  killed  the  Littlefield  anti-trust  bill  a  few  years 
before.  It  had  killed  the  Townsend-Esch  bill,  and  the  Democrats 
were  determined,  if  possible,  to  force  the  Senate  to  pass  at  least 
the  Hepburn  bill,  or  fight  the  question  out,  if  it  took  all  summer. 
The  result  was  the  old  Act  of  1887  was  amended  by  the  recent 
law,  which  is  now  in  effect. 

Even  the  Hepburn  bill  does  not  afford  anything  like  a  full  or 
adequate  measure  of  relief.  Practically,  all  amendments  designed 
to  perfect  it  were  voted  down  in  the  House,  and  the  Republicans 
in  the  Senate  not  only  sought  to  destroy  it  with  the  so-called 
"broad  court  review"  but  defeated  every  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  Democrats,  and  those  few  Republicans  who  really  desired 
effective  legislation,  to  strengthen  or  complete  it.  Urgent 
recommendations  of  the  Commission  were  ignored,  and  from  the 
subjoined  statement  of  the  vital  matters  excluded  from  the  bill, 
will  be  seen  how  serious  have  been  the  omissions  of  the  Re- 
publican Congress  in  the  matter  of  rate  legislation,  and  how 
much  more  effective  the  law  could  and  should  have  been  made. 
For  its  defects  and  omissions,  the  Republicans  in  the  House  and 
Senate  are  alone  responsible.  For  its  perfection  the  people  must 
look  to  the  Democratic  party. 

RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  COMMISSION    FOR   LEGISLA- 
TION  NOT  PROVIDED  FOR  IN  THE  AMENDED  LAW. 

The  Commission  in  1903  recommended  Congress  to  authorize 
that  a  valuation  of  railway  property  be  made;  but  the  new  law 
makes  no  provision  authorizing  the  Commission  to  ascertain  the 


152         CONFERENCE  REPORT  ON  COMMERCE  ACT,  1887. 

value  of  railroad  property.  This  is  most  essential  and  its 
omission  may,  and  probably  will,  lead  to  an  assault  on  the  law. 

The  amended  law  does  not  confer  upon  the  Commission  the 
broad  powers  to  revise  rates  upon  its  own  motion  in  proper 
proceedings,  or  to  fix  absolute  rates  under  any  circumstances 
whatever,  though  the  Commission  informed  Congress  that  those 
powers  are  positively  essential.  Previous  to  the  Maximum  Rate 
Case  the  Commission,  with  Judge  Cooley  as  Chairman,  exercised 
this  power. 

Maintaining  the  relation  of  rates  to  competing  localities  is 
fully  as  important  as  the  making  of  reasonable  rates  in  them- 
selves, and  the  Commission  has  often  requested  Congress  for 
such  power;  but  the  new  law  makes  no  specific  provision  granting 
such  authority  to  the  Commission. 

Changing  the  classification  of  an  article  of  freight  usually 
changes  the  rates  under  which  the  traffic  is  transported.  Sweep- 
ing changes  in  rates  are  often  effected  by  a  change  in  classifica- 
tion. Though  the  Commission  has  repeatedly  recommended  that 
it  should  be  empowered  to  prescribe  a  reasonable  classification, 
the  amended  law  makes  no  provision  conferring  such  authority 
upon  the  Commission. 

The  long  and  short  haul  section  of  the  old  law  was  made 
practically  inoperative  by  court  interpretation,  owing  to  the 
broad  construction  given  the  phrase  "under  similar  circumstances 
and  conditions."  The  Commission  has  called  attention  to  this 
defect  in  the  law  and  has  recommended  that  it  be  given  the 
power  to  determine  what  conditions  are  dissimilar;  but  the 
amended  law  ignored  those  recommendations  and  the  necessity 
of  their  enactment  into  law. 

Under  the  old  law  the  railway  companies  withheld  important 
testimony  upon  the  hearings  before  the  Commission  which  they 
subsequently  offered  on  the  trial  before  the  court.  In  this  manner 
they  succeeded  in  reversing  the  Commission  and  in  delaying  the 
administration  of  justice,  although  the  Supreme  Court  vigor- 
ously condemned  the  practice.  This  very  serious  defect  remains 
in  the  new  law. 

The  Commission  has  for  many  years  urged  legislation  to  reduce 
the  long  and  increasing  roll  of  slaughter  of  employees  and 
passengers  by  the  enactment  of  a  law  compelling  carriers  to 
adopt  the  block  system,  but  the  amended  law  has  failed  to  include 
such  a  provision. 


EXTRAVAGANT  APPROPRIATIONS.  153 

EXTRAVAGANT  APPROPRIATIONS. 

FIFTY-NINTH  CONGRESS. 

The  official  statement  of  the  volume  of  appropriations  made  by 
the  first  session  of  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  prepared  by  Thomas 
P.  Cleaver  and  James  C.  Courts,  chief  clerks  of  the  Senate  and 
House  appropriation  committees,  shows  that  the  grand  total  is 
$879,589,186.16. 

The  details  by  bills  are  as  follows: 

Agriculture    $9,930,440 .00 

Army 71,817,165.08 

Diplomatic  and  consular 3,091,094. 17 

District  of  Columbia 10,138,672. 16 

Fortification 5,053,993 .00 

Indian 9,260,599 .  98 

Legislative,  executive  and  judicial 29,681,919.30 

Military  Academy 1,664,707 .  67 

Naval    102,091,670.27 

Pension   140,245,500.00 

Post-office 191,695,998 .  75 

Sundry  civil 98,538,770.32 

Deficiency   appropriations 39,129,035 .  45 

Miscellaneous  appropriations 27,173,299.01 

Permanent  appropriations 140,076,320.00 

Grand  total $879,589,185. 16 

There  was  no  river  and  harbor  appropriation  at  this  session. 
If  the  same  amount  for  rivers  and  harbors  which  was  appropriated 
in  1898  had  been  appropriated  the  total  would  have  reached 
$900,421,598.07. 

And  though  there  were  no  appropriations  for  rivers  and  harbors 
this  year,  yet  the  total  appropriations  exceed  those  of  1898  by 
$350,854,105.86. 

The  total  of  appropriations  for  1898  was  $528,735,105.86.  The 
details  by  bills  for  that  year  were  as  follows: 

Agricultural    $3,182,902 .  00 

Army 23,129,344.30 

Diplomatic  and  consular 1,695,308 .  76 

District  of  Columbia 6,186,991 .06 

Fortifications 9,517,141 .00 

Indian 7,674,120.89 

Legislative,  etc 21,690,766 .  90 

Military  Academy 479,572 .  83 

Navy 33,003,234. 19 

Pensions  (including  deficiencies  therefor) 141,263,880.00 

Post-office 95,665,338 .  75 

River    and    harbor     (including   amounts    in    sundry 

civil,  deficiency,  and  special  acts) 20,832,412.91 

Sundry  civil    (exclusive  of  amounts  for  rivers  and 

harbors)    34,490,370.47 

Deficiencies   (exclusive  of  amounts  for  pensions  and 

rivers  and  harbors) 9,096,417 .34 

Total $407,907,801 .40 

Miscellaneous 749,057 .  90 

Total  regular  annual  appropriations $408,656,859 .  30 

Permanent  annual  appropriations  (estimates) 120,078,220.00 

Grand  total $528,735,079 .  30 

— Cong.  Record,  p.  10,124. 


154  EXTRAVAGANT  APPROPRIATIONS^. 

The  most  striking  increases  are  those  providing  for  the  army, 
navy,  sundry  civil,  and  deficiencies. 

1898.  1907.    • 

Army $23,129,344.30  $71,817,165.08 

Navy 33,003,234.19  -       102,091,670.27 

Deficiencies 9,096,417 .  34  39,129,035 .  45 

Sundry  civil 34,490,370 .  47  98,538,770 .  32 


The  combined  appropriations  for  the  army  and  navy  for  1898 
were  $56,132,578.49.  The  combined  appropriations  for  the  army 
and  navy  for  1907  are  $173,908,835.35.  This  shows  an  increase  of 
$117,776,257.86  in  these  two  items  alone.  The  expense  of  the  army 
and  navy  is  therefore  more  than  three  times  as  great  now  as  it 
was  in  1898. 

In  discussing  these  extravagant  appropriations,  Mr.  Livingston, 
the  ranking  Democrat  on  the  House  Appropriations  Committee, 
said  in  a  statement  published  in  the  Congressional  Record  of 
July  3,  1906: 

"This  growth  in  appropriations  sustains  the  contention  that  the 
Republican  party  stands  for  extravagance  in  public  expenditures,  in 
order  to  use  that  extravagance  as  a  cloak  for  their  more  objectionable 
purpose  of  maintaining  a  high  protective  tariff  to'  favor  the  trust 
combinations  of  manufacturers  of  the  country. 

"A  reduction  of  expenditures,  they  well  know,  would  compel  a 
commensurate  reduction  in  taxation,  and  to  that  extent  a  lowering  of 
the  Chinese  wall  of  protection  that  now  surrounds  the  great  body  of 
consumers,  who  constitute  the  larger  portion  of  our  population,  and 
compel  tribute  from  them  to  the  favored  classes. 

"Much  of  this  extravagance  grows  out  of  the  practice  prevailing 
with  the  present  Administration  of  appointing  commissions  to  do  what 
Congress  ought  to  do,  and  what  Congressmen  are  elected  for  and  paid 
for;  thus  delegating  the  powers  constitutionally  belonging  to  Con- 
gress to  others  who  have  no  particular  relations  with,  or  responsibili- 
ties to,  the  public,  and  do  not  render  an  accounting  to  the  taxpayers 
of  this  country." 


DEFICIENCIES— HOW  MADE.  155 


DEFICIENCIES— HOW  MADE. 

HOW  THEY   HAVE   GROWN    IN   VIOLATION   OF   LAW   LONG 
SINCE   ENACTED. 

Section  3679  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States 
provides: 

"That  no  Department  of  the  Government  shall  expend,  in  any  one 
year,  any  sum  in  excess  of  appropriations  made  by  Congress  for 
that  fiscal  year,  or  involve  the  Government  in  any  contract  for  the 
future  payment  of  money  in  excess  of  such  appropriations." 

And  the  Constitution  provides  that  "no  money  shall  be  drawn 
from  the  Treasury,  but  in  pursuance  of  appropriations  made  by 
law;"  that  is,  by  act  of  Congress,  since  Congress  alone  has  power 
to  lay  taxes  or  appropriate  the  proceeds  thereof. 

If  these  laws  were  obeyed  by  the  Executive  Departments  there 
would  never  be  a  deficiency  at  the  close  of  any  fiscal  year.  But 
for  many  years  they  have  been  systematically  violated,  and  Con- 
gress has  winked  at  the  violation  by  ratifying  the  payments  made 
in  excess  of  appropriations,  and  making  new  appropriations  to 
cover  the  excess  of  expenditures  over  appropriations. 

Starting  with  the  year  1898,  these  deficiency  appropriations 
have  been  made  by  Congress  as  follows: 

1898 $8,594,447 

1899 347,165,001 

1900 46,882,724 

1901 13,167,008 

1902 13,289,314 

1903 24,944,124 

1904 19,651,968 

1905 25,083,375 

1906 38,095,378 

Total $537,873,357 

These  vast  sums  aggregating  more  than  half  a  billion  dollars 
were  not  drawn  from  the  Treasury  "in  pursuance  of  appropria- 
tions made  by  law,"  as  the  Constitution  requires,  but  were  spent 
under  the  Executive  Department  before  appropriations  to  meet 
the  expenditures  had  been  made.  The  effect  is  that  the  purse 
strings  are  practically  taken  from  Congress  and  seized  by  the 
Executive  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  our  Gov- 
ernment that  the  people's  representatives  in  the  Lower  House  of 
Congress,  and  no  other  functionary  whatever,  shall  control  the 
purse  of  the  nation.  The  officers  who  are  responsible  for  these 
expenditures  in  excess  of  appropriations  already  have  disobeyed 
the  law  and  should  have  been,  but  were  not  punished. 


156  PRODUCTIVITY  OF  LABOR. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  AND  FOREIGN  LABOR. 

The  Review  of  the  World's  Commerce  during  the  year  1901 
submitted  to  Congress  by  President  McKinley  and  Secretary  Hay, 
January,  1901,  states  that  "the  London  Spectator  of  December  29, 
1900,  quotes  'a  competent  writer'  in  a  British  trade  paper  as 
saying: 

"  'From  a  careful  calculation,  made  after  comparing  notes  with  other 
observers,  and  taking  the  figure  1  to  1^  as  representing  the  producing 
capacity  of  the  ordinary  British  workman,  I  consider  the  Swiss- 
German  as  finely  represented  by  1%  and  the  Yankee  by  2^.'" 

William  M.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  report  on  the 
"State  of  Labor  in  Europe,"  1879,  said: 

"Tlie  average  American  workman  performs  from  one  to  one  and 
one-half  to  twice  as  much  work  in  a  given  time  as  the  average 
European  worker.  This  is  so  important  a  point  in  connection  with 
our  ability  to  compete  with  the  cheap  labor  manufacturer  of  Europe, 
tliat  it  seems  at  first  thought  so  strange,  that  I  will  trouble  you  with 
somewhat  lengthy  quotation  from  the  reports  in  support  thereof: 

"France — The  hours  of  labor  are  from  eleven  to  twelve,  but  an 
average  American  workman  will  accomplish  as  much  in  nine  hours. 
(Report,   Consul  Bordeaux.) 

"Germany — I  am  satisfied  that  an  ordinary  workman  in  the  United 
States  will  do  as  much  again  as  will  one  in  this  district  in  the  same 
time.      (Report,  Chemnitz,  Saxony.) 

"An  active  American  workman  will  do  as  much  work  in  a  given 
time,  at  any  employment,  as  two  or  three  German  workman.  ( Report, 
Consul  Leipsic.) 

"There  can  be  no  question  that,  speaking  in  general  terms,  the 
quality  as  well  as  the  quantity,  of  the  work  of  the  German  artisan 
is  inferior  to  that  produced  by  the  American.  The  workman  here  is 
inclined  to  be  sluggish,  and  what  he  accomplishes  is  relatively  small. 
(Report,  Consul  Sonneberg.) 

CONCLUSION. 

"One  workman  in  the  United  States,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  fore- 
going extracts,  does  as  much  work  as  two  workmen  in  most  of  the 
countries  of  Europe. 

"Within  the  last  fifteen  years,  we  have  demonstrated  our  ability, 
by  the  brilliant  development  of  our  resources,  to  exclude,  by  honest 
competition,  foreign  manufactures  to  a  large  extent  from  our  shores." 

Mr.  Blaine,  Secretary  of  State,  June  25,  1881,  reported  on  our 
cotton  goods  trade  of  the  world,  said: 

"Undoubtedly  the  inequalities  in  the  wages  of  English  and  American 
operatives  are  more  than  equalized  by  the  greater  efficiency  of  the 
latter  and  their  longer  hours  of  labor." 

He  gave  several  examples  as  follows: 

"The  wages  of  spinners  and  weavers  in  Lancashire  and  in  Massa- 
chusetts, according  to  the  foregoing  statements,  were  as  follows  per 
week:  Spinners,  English,  $7.20  to  $8.40  (master  spinners  running  as 
high  as  $12.00)  ;  American,  $7.07  to  $10.30. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  LABOR.  15T 

Weavers,  English,  $3.84  to  $8.64,  subject,  at  the  date  on  which  these 
rates  were  given,  to  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent.;  American,  $4.82 
to  $8.73. 

The  average  wages  of  employees  in  the  Massachusetts  mills  are  as 
follows,  according  to  the  official  returns:  Men,  $8.30;  women,  $5.62; 
male  children,  $3.11;  female  children,  $3.08.  According  to  Consul 
Shaw's  report,  the  average  wages  of  the  men  employed  in  the  Lan- 
cashire mills  on  the  1st  of  January,  1880,  was  about  $8.00  per  week, 
subject  to  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent.;  women  from  $3.40  to  $4.30, 
subject  to  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent." 

The  statistician,  State  Department,  Mr.  C.  S.  Hill,  to  the  Tariff 
Commission  stated  that  our  manufacturing  in  1882  was  $8,000,- 
000,000  made  by  5,250,000  hands,  and  that  for  the  same  time  the 
product  of  England  was  $4,000,000,000  made  by  5,140,200  hands, 
and  then  said: 

"Here  is  the  positive  proof  that  American  mechanics  in  the  aggre- 
gate accomplish  exactly  double  the  result  of  the  same  number  of 
British  mechanics.  They  are,  therefore,  very  justly  paid  double  in 
wages." 

On  April  24,  1894,  Senator  Mills,  of  Texas,  delivered  a  speech  in 
the  Senate,  in  part,  as  follows: 

Mr.  President,  we  have  the  cheapest  labor  on  the  globe.  We  have 
the  poorest  paid  labor  in  proportion  to  the  work  our  laborers  do  that  is 
to  be  found  on  earth.  Why  so  ?  Because  we  work  by  machinery,  and 
one  laborer  in  this  country  produces  in  some  cases  five,  ten,  and  even 
over  ten  times  more  than  is  performed  by  the  man  who  is  doing  the 
same  work  in  other  countries.  Great  Britain  approaches  more  closely 
to  us  than  any  other  country,  but  she  is  behind  us.  We  can  produce 
the  things  we  are  producing  cheaper  than  anybody  else  on  earth. 

I  have  a  statement  here  to  which  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Senate,  the  country  and  especially  of  the  wageworkers.  Mulhall's 
Dictionary  of  Statistics  gives  the  number  of  persons  employed  in 
manufactures  in  all  the  different  countries  in  the  world  that  are 
manufacturing  to  any  considerable  extent,  the  total  value  of  the 
product  made  in  each  country  and  the  number  of  persons  employed. 

By  dividing  the  number  of  hands  by  the  value  of  the  product  we 
get  precisely  the  amount  of  value  turned  out  by  each  hand. 

This  statement  shows  that  for  1888  the  United  Kingdom  had 
5,189,000  persons  employed  in  manufacture;  that  they  turned  out  a 
l)roduct  worth  $4,100,000,000  and  the  product  per  hand  was  $790. 
France  had  4,443,000  persons  employed.  They  turned  out  a  product 
valued  at  $2,425,000,000,  or  $545  per  hand.  Germany  had  5,350,000 
persons  employed.  They  turned  out  a  product  valued  at  $2,915,- 
000,000  or  $545  per  head.  Russia  had  4,700,000  employed.  She 
turned  out  a  product  valued  at  $1,815,000,000,  or  $381  per  head. 
I  will  print  this  table  and  will  not  go  over  it  all.  The  United  States 
had  3,'837,000  persons  employed,  who  turned  out  a  product  valued  at 
$7,215,000,000,  or  $1880  per  head. 

Department  of  Labob, 
Washington,  February  6,  1894. 

My  Dear  Sir — ^In  response  to  yours  of  January  18th  and  January 
26th,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  from  the  various  sources  which  I 
have  been  able  to  consult  I  estimate  the  average  annual  earnings  in  all 
manufacturing  industries  in  the  countries  named  by  you  to  be  as 
follows: 

1,  United  States,  $347;  2,  Great  Britain,  $204;  3,  France,  $175; 
4,  Belgium,  $165;  5,  Germany,  $155;  6,  Austria,  $150;  7,  Switzerland, 
$150;  8,  Italy,  $130;  9,  Spain,  $120;  10,  Russia,  $120. 


158  PRODUCTIVITY  OF  LABOR. 

The  above  estimates  have  been  made,  so  far  as  the  United  States  is 
concerned,  from  the  actual  number  of  persons  employed  and  the  total 
wages  paid  to  them  as  shown  by  the  census  of  1880;  for  Great  Britain 
they  have  been  made  largely  from  British  figures,  and  for  the  other 
countries  the  estimates  have  been  made  from  statements  originating 
with  foreign  authorities  and  verified  by  facts  collected  by  agents  of 
this  department.  While  the  actual  figures  given  in  the  above  esti- 
mates may  not  be  more  than  approximately  correct,  the  proportions, 
I  feel  sure,  are  fair. 

I  am,  very  respectfully, 

CARROLL  D.  WRIGHT, 

Commissioner. 
Hon.  Roger  Q.  Mills, 

United  States  Senate. 
The  average  annual  rate  of  wages  is  for  1880.     The  number  of  hands 
and  value  of  product  is  for   1888.     The  relative  comparison   is  the 
same.     The  wages  in  all  countries  would  be  higher  in  1888  than  in 

1880.     But  the  relative  differences  would  be  substantially  the  same. 
«»»»♦»  » 

I  am  not  talking  about  1890.  I  am  taking  the  annual  average 
wages  paid  in  1880  and  comparing  it  with  the  product  of  1888.  It 
makes  no  difference,  as  I  said  before,  that  the  wages  are  of  1880  and 
the  product  of  1888,  for  relatively  they  are  the  same  thing.  The 
wages  for  1888  would  have  been  a  little  larger  in  all  the  countries, 
but  it  is  amply  sufficient  for  the  purposes  which  I  have  in  view. 
Now,  let  us  apply  this.  Seven  hundred  and  ninety  dollars'  worth  of 
product  per  hand  in  Great  Britain  cost  in  wages  $204.  In  France 
$545  worth  of  product  cost  $175  for  wages.  In  Germany  $545  cost 
$155  for  wages. 

In  the  United  States  $1,880  worth  of  product  cost  $347  for  wages. 
Now,  our  friends  point  to  the  fact  that  the  workman  in  the  United 
States  gets  $347  for  his  annual  work;  in  Great  Britain  he  gets  $204; 
in  France  he  gets  $175;  in  Germany  $155.  Ours  is  the  high-priced 
workman,  and  these  are  paupers,  but  when  we  come  to  look  at  the 
fact,  that  our  people  are  paid  less  than  the  foreigner  for  the  amount 
of  work  they  turn  out,  the  boot  is  found  on  the  other  foot. 

Now,  let  us  carry  this  thing  out.  Let  us  take  the  labor  cost  in  other 
countries  of  $1,880  worth  of  product  and  compare  it  with  ours.  The 
$1,880  worth  of  goods  imported  into  the  United  States  is  the  thing  that 
is  to  test  the  condition  of  our  workmen.  When  the  goods  come  here 
then  the  labor  cost  of  a  given  amount  of  goods  is  compared  with  the 
labor  cost  of  the  same  amount  of  goods  in  a  foreign  country.  One 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighty  dollars'  worth  of  goods  cost  in  this 
country  $347  for  labor. 

Table  Showing  Number  of  Employees,  Total  Value  of  Product, 
Value  of  Product  Per  Employee,  Annual  Average  Wages 
Paid  Per  Employee  in  Manufacturing  Industries  in  the 
Countries  Named  Below  in  1880. 

Total  value  of 

Countries.  product. 

United  Kingdom $4,100,000,000 

France 2,425,000,000 

Germany 2,915,000,000 

Russia 1,815,000,000 

Austria 1,265,000,000 

Italy 605,000,000 

Spain 425,000,000 

Belgium 510,000,000 

Switzerland 160,000,000 

United  States 7,215,000,000 


Product  Annual 

Number  of 

per 

wages 

employees. 

hand. 

paid. 

5,189,000 

$790 

,  $204 

4,443,000 

545 

175 

5,350,000 

545 

155 

4,760,000 

381 

120 

3,090,000 

409 

150 

2,281,000 

265 

130 

1,167,000 

364 

120 

953,000 

545 

165 

370,000 

433 

150 

3,837,000 

1,880 

347 

WHO  PAYS  THE  TARIFF  TAX*  159 

WHO  PAYS  THE  TARIFF  TAX? 

■s 

THE  "FATHERS."  1 

The  Republicans  speak  of  the  "fathers,"  who  framed  the  first 
tariff  so  as  to  "encourage  and  protect"  our  "manufacturers."  We 
have  seen  that  this  tariff  was  practically  no  tariff  compared  with 
the  Dingley  rates,  or  any  other  Republican  tariff  ever  framed. 
But  in  the  House  even  Mr.  Madison,  one  of  the  "fathers,"  warned 
Congress  not  to  be  "oppressive"  in  framing  this  (insignificant) 
tax  rate  and  the  Senate  reduced  some  of  the  rates  in  the  House 
bill.  What  did  the  "fathers"  then  say  about  "who  pays  the  tariff 
tax?" 

Alexander  Hamilton  said: 

"Duties  of  this  nature  evidently  amount  to  a  virtual  bounty  on 
the  domestic  fabrics." 

John  Quincy  Adams  said:  , 

"The  duty  constitutes  a  part  of  the  price  of  the  whole  mass  of  the 
article  in  the  market.  It  is  substantially  paid  upon  the  article  of 
domestic  manufacture  as  well  as  upon  that  of  foreign  production. 
Upon  one  it  is  a  bounty,  upon  the  other  a  burden,  and  the  repeal  of  the 
tax  must  operate  as  an  equivalent  reduction  of  the  price  of  the  article, 
whether  foreign  or  domestic." 

Mr.  Clay: 

"If  there  is  any  truth  in  political  economy,  it  cannot  be  that  result 
will  agree  with  the  prediction,  for  we  are  instructed  by  our  experience 
that  the  consumption  of  any  article  is  in  proportion  to  the  reduction  of 
its  price,  and  that,  in  general,  it  may  be  taken  as  a  rule  that  the  duty 
upon  an  article  forms  a  part  of  its  price." 

Andrew  Jackson: 

"There  is,  perhaps,  no  one  of  the  powers  conferred  on  the  Federal 
Government  so  liable  to  abuse  as  the  taxing  power. 

"The  taxes  which  it  lays  upon  commerce  being  concealed  from  the 
real  payer  in  the  price  of  the  article,  they  do  not  so  readily  attract  the 
attention  of  the  people  as  smaller  sums  demanded  from  them  directly 
by  the  tax  gatherer,  and  as  many  of  these  duties  are  imposed  upon  arti- 
cles of  necessity  which  are  daily  used  by  the  great  body  of  the  people, 
the  money  raised  by  these  imposts  is  drawn  from  their  pockets." 

Senator  Sherman  said: 

"I  say  it,  and  I  stand  by  it,  that  as  a  general  rule  the  duties  paid 
on  imports  operate  as  a  tax  upon  the  consumer." 

Senator  Edmunds: 

"In  the  main,  all  these  taxes  come  out,  of  the  consumer,  particularly 
internal  revenue  tax,  and  p^rhapg  all  of  ihese  substantially." 


160  WHO  PAYS  THE  TARIFF  TAXf 

Mr.  Payne,  the  Republican  leader  of  the  House,  March  27,  1897, 
said: 

"I  want  to  state  the  proposition  again.  I  do  not  want  any  Democrat 
to  have  any  dispute  or  trouble  about  it.  (1)  Where  we  do  not  pro- 
duce an  article  in  the  United  States,  or  (2)  produce  a  very  small  pro- 
portion, like  10  or  12  per  cent.,  when  we  put  a  duty  on  that  article  it 
becomes  a  revenue  duty  purely.  Such  a  duty  raises  the  price  almost  to 
the  full  extent  of  the  duty,  and  the  consumer  has  to  pay  it ;  but  when 
you  put  a  duty  on  an  article  that  we  can  produce  in  the  United  States 
and  put  on  duty  enough  to  allow  our  people  to  go  into  the  business, 
immediately  competition  takes  place  and  the  universal  Yankee  mind 
is  out  for  an  invention  to  try  to  find  some  way  to  make  it  more 
cheaply,  and  the  price  of  the  article  is  cheapened  in  the  American 
market  until  it  gets  away  down  below  the  former  price,  and  very  often 
away  down  below  the  duty."     ( Applause  on  the  Republican  side. ) 

Mr.  Payne's  argument  is  that  the  consumer  pays  the  tax  in  three 
instances: 

First,  when  we  levy  a  tax  on  the  article  we  do  not  produce. 

Second,  when  we  produce  10  or  12  per  cent,  of  such  article. 

Third,  when  we  can  produce  the  article  and  there  is  no  com- 
petition. 

Mr.  Payne,  in  effect,  admits  the  Republican  way  is  ver^y  narroiv 
for  the  consumer  to  escape  paying  the  tax  at  least  on  the  article 
we  can  produce.  Man's  experience  is  that  when  foreign  com- 
petition is  excluded  combinations  form  and  control  or  entirely 
destroy  competition.  The  consumer  objects  to  paying  a  price 
unreasonable  under  the  circumstances,  whether  the  article  is  or  is 
not  taxed.  And  the  circumstances  should  not  be  caused  by  unfair 
or  unlawful  methods.  Many  public  utterances  of  leading  Repub- 
licans mightily  support  the  contention  of  the  Democrats,  that  the 
tariff  is  a  tax  and  that  the  "monopolized  article"  should  be 
untaxed,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Sherman,  Mr.  Hale  and  other  Repub- 
licans, to  free  it  and  liberate  and  give  the  people  a  fair  chance  to 
buy  in  the  open  market  and  live  like  free  men. 

In  speaking  of  a  monopoly  in  steel  rails.  Representative  John 
H.  Gear,  of  Iowa,  January  16,  1880,  said: 

-  "To  a  State  whose  products  are  in  the  main  agricultural,  as  are 
those  of  Iowa,  anything  which  enhances  the  cost  of  railways,  thereby 
even  incidentally  in  the  least  degree  increasing  the  expense  of  the 
transportation  of  her  products  to  the  seaboard,  which  is  her  great 
market,  is  a  question  of  great  interest  to  all.  In  vieAv  of  their  greater 
strength  and  durability,  which  lessened  the  cost  of  replacement,  all 
the  great  trunk  railway  lines  of  the  country  are  adopting  Bessemer 
steel  rails.  The  manufacturers  of  this  class  of  rails  in  the  United 
States  are  controlled  by  a  combination  of  not  exceeding,  I  think,  ten 
firms  in  number. 

"This  combination  is  protected  by  a  high  and  specific  tariff,  which 
prevents  the  importation  of  foreign  rails  to  any  extent,  thereby  in- 
creasing the  cost  of  the  railways  of  the  country.  Without  discussing 
the  tariff  question  in  all  its  bearings,  it  may  well  be  considered 
whether  it  is  wise  legislation,  by  a  tariff  exceptional  in  its  character, 
to  put  immense  profits  into  the  pockets  of  a  monopoly  composed  of 
but  few  persons  at  the  expense,  in  directly,  not  only  of  Iowa  farmers, 
but  of  the  whole  West.  It  would,  therefore,  be  well  to  instruct  our 
Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  to  examine  into  this  sub- 
ject with  a  view  to  removing  by  Congressional  legislation  any  dis- 
criminations which  may  be  found  to  exist  in  the  tariff  on  steel  rails 
p-gainst  tihe  interests  of  Iowa  producers." 


'FREE  LISTr  161 


"FREE  LIST,"  THE  MONOPOLIZED  ARTICLE  TO  KILL 
THE  MONOPOLY  OR  TRUST. 

HIGH    REPUBLICAN   AUTHORITY   FOR   THIS   REMEDY. 
Mr.  Hale,  now  Senator,  in  the  House,  1871,  said: 

"Tlie  best  Turks  Island  salt  can  be  purchased  at  the  place  produced 
at  9  and  10  cents  per  bushel.  I  believe  there  is  no  one  question  about 
which  the  reflection  of  millions  of  people  day  by  day  is  so  decided  as 
it  is  in  declaring  that  there  should  be  no  tax  upon  this  article  of  salt. 
I  have  been  asked  to  amend  the  bill  introduced  by  me,  so  as  to  cut 
down  the  duty  50  per  cent.  I  do  not  consent  to  that.  I  believe  this 
article  should  be  put  upon  the  free  list;  that  the  monopoly  which  has 
obtained  heretofore  for  the  Onondaga  Salt  Works — ^as  great  and  com- 
plete as  any  monopoly  ever  planted  by  the  Tudors  in  England's  most 
despotic  times — ought  to  cease." 

May  18,  1872,  Mr.  Garfield  said: 

"American  salt  for  two  years  past  has  been  sold  in  Toronto,  Canada, 
at  a  dollar  less  per  barrel  than  on  the  New  York  side  of  the  lake. 
That  is,  we  produced  it,  shipped  it  across,  paying  whatever  portage, 
freights  and  transportation  were  required,  and  then  sold  to  our  Ca- 
nadian neighbors  at  a  dollar  per  barrel  less  than  it  was  sold  to  people 
on  our  shores.  Certainly  gentlemen  will  not  want  a  duty  continued 
that  enables  that  thing  to  be  done." 

On  June  6, 1870,  by  vote — ayes  112,  noes  78,  not  voting  40  (Globe, 
vol.  43,  p.  4101) — the  House  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  is  hereby  in- 
structed, at  the  earliest  moment  practicable,  to  report  a  bill  to  this 
House  to  abolish  the  tariff  on  coal,  so  as  to  secure  that  important 
article  oi  fuel  to  the  people  free  from  all  taxes." 

Among  those  voting  "aye"  were  Messrs.  Allison  and  Cullom, 
now  Senators;  the  late  Senator  Hawley;  John  A.  Logan  and  B.  F. 
Butler. 

March  21,  1890,  Mr.  Sherman  said: 

"If  the  combination  is  aided  by  our  tariff  laws  they  should  be 
promptly  changed,  and,  if  necessary,  equal  competition  with  all  the 
world  should  be  invited  in  the  monopolized  article." 

The  late  Governor  Mount  (Republican),  said  in  1899: 

"I  am  against  trusts.  Remove  the  protection  from  the  article  con- 
trolled by  trusts,  thereby  permitting  open  competition,  and  see  how 
quickly  these  trusts  will  come  to  their  senses." 

October  15,  1899,  Mr.  Sherman  said: 

"The  primary  object  of  a  protective  tariff  is  to  invite  the  fullest 
competition  of  individuals  and  corporations  in  domestic  production. 
If  the  individuals  or  corporations  combine  to  advance  the  price  of  a 
domestic  product  to  prevent  free  result  of  open  and  fair  competition, 


162  ''FREE  list: 


I  would  without  a  moment's  hesitation  reduce  the  duties  on  foreign 
goods  competing  with  them  in  order  to  break  down  tae  combination. 
Whenever  this  competition  is  evaded  or  avoided  by  combination  of 
individuals  or  manufacturers,  the  duty  should  be  reduced  and  foreign 
competition  promptly  invited." 

Senator  Washburn  (Republican),  in  1899,  said: 

"The  Republican  party  has  got  to  disconnect  itself  from  trusts,  and 
wherever  they  find  the  trust  is  depending  for  its  exorbitant  profits 
largely  on  protective  duties  it  will  be  the  duty  of  Republican  Con- 
gressmen and  Senators  to  remove  the  duties  at  once.  This  should 
be  done  with  the  duty  on  steel  rails  and  tin  plate." 


SENATOR  SHERMAN. 

REDUCE  DUTY.     INVITE  FOREIGN  COMPETITION  TO  CURB 

TRUSTS. 

The  primary  object  of  a  protective  tariff  is  to  invite  the  fullest 
competition  by  individuals  and  corporations  in  domestic  production. 
If  such  individuals  or  corporations  combine  to  advance  the  price  of 
the  domestic  product,  and  to  prevent  the  free  result  of  open  and  fair 
competition,  I  would,  without  a  moment's  hesitation,  reduce  the  duties 
on  foreign  goods  competing  with  them  in  order  to  break  down  the 
combination.     *     *     * 

Whenever  this  free  competition  is  evaded  or  avoided  hy  combination 
of  individuals  or  corporations,  the  duty  should  be  reduced  and  foreign 
competition  promptly  invited. — October  15,  1889. 


BLAINE  FOR  FREE  HIDES. 

BLAINE  TO   McKINLEY  IN   1890. 

Washington,  April  10,  1890. 
Deab  Mr.  McKinley  : 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  take  hides  from  the  free  list,  where  they 
have  been  for  so  many  years.  It  is  a  slap  in  the  face  to  the  South 
Americans  with  whom  we  are  trying  to  enlarge  our  trade.  It  will 
benefit  the  farmer  by  adding  five  to  eight  per  cent,  to  the  price  of  his 
children's  shoes.  It  will  yield  a  profit  to  the  butcher  only — ^the  last 
man  that  needs  it.  The  movement  is  injudicious  from  beginning  to 
end — in  every  form  and  phase.  Pray  stop  it  before  it  sees  light. 
Such  movements  as  this  for  protection  will  protect  the  Republican 
party  into  a  speedy  retirement. 

Yours  hastily, 

James  G.  Blaine. 
Hon.  William  McKinley, 

Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 


A  TAX  ON  HIDES  IS  A  TAX  ON  SHOES.  163 


A  TAX  ON  HIDES  IS  A  TAX  ON  THE  SHOES  WE  WEAR. 

The  shoe  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  demand  the  repeal 
of  the  15  per  cent.  Dingley  tariff  tax  on  hides.  They  say  that 
tax  has  only  benefited  the  Cattle  Trust  and  the  Beef  Trust,  they 
being  one  and  the  same  thing  in  effect,  if  not  in  fact.  The  Beef 
Trust  is  giant  enough  to  escape  punishment — having  received  a 
recent  "immunity  bath"  under  the  Roosevelt  administration,  and 
confessedly  disobeyed  the  injunction  previously  issued  against  it, 
and  yet  the  Republicans  "stand  pat"— say  this  giant  is  an  "infant" 
and  needs  15  per  cent,  protection — and  refuse  to  reduce  or  repeal 
this  tax,  and  that  too  in  face  of  the  fact,  that  the  shoe  manufac- 
turers say,  with  this  tax  repealed,  they  can  make  and  sell  our  own 
people  cheaper  shoes  and  increase  their  export  sales. 

They  also  say,  that  imported  hides  are  sold  by  our  Hide  Trust 
cheaper  to  foreigners,  who  come  to  the  United  States  and  buy 
them,  than  to  our  own  people. 

The  recent  Republican  Campaign  Book  (1906)  states  that  the 
lariff  on  hides  was  5  per  cent,  under  the  tariff  of  1842 — a  protective 
tariff,  and  4  per  cent,  under  the  tariff  of  1857 — the  lowest  tariff 
since  1812 — which  the  Republicans  framed  and  helped  to  pass 
through  a  Republican  House,  presided  over  by  a  Republican 
Speaker,  General  Banks.  This  book  further  states,  that  the  tariff 
was  raised  to  5  per  cent.  March,  1861,  and  increased  December, 
1861,  to  10  per  cent.,  of  course  to  get  revenue  to  carry  on  the  Civil 
War;  that  rate  remained  until  1873,  and  from  that  date  hides 
were  "free"  until  the  Dingley  tariff  of  1897  placed  a  tariff  tax  of 
15  per  cent,  on  hides.  Although  in  the  recent  Republican  Cam- 
paign Book  (1906)  it  is  stated  the  price  of  shoes  have  not  been 
increased  under  the  Dingley  tariff,  they  produce  no  official  table 
showing  this.  In  the  Republican  Campaign  Book  of  1904,  page 
66,  the  exact  opposite  is  shown  by  a  table  there  printed  here 
reproduced: 


164 


A  TAX  ON  HIDES  IS  A  TAX  ON  SHOES. 


Women's 
split  shoes 

si                                            

^   1 

^            :^^    :^:«j    ^:^               :i^ 

0, 

I' 

^                                                                                         r-tr-(       rlr-lrtrlTHr-lr-tr-lr-tr-lrH 

P4 

1  " 

OOgOOgOOggWNt^Ou3(MiO»ffiMNi«»niN(M(NI-t-t-l-t- 

§ 

r 

d     a> 

•  :;3>?+i  •:;3>>+^  -S^^-m  .:3>>4i  •:;3>.+^  •:3  >.-ii  .C3  >.+J  -a 

Illlllii 

THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  165 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  paid  $20,894,094.65  tariff 
tax  on  hides  and  skins  imposed  by  the  Dingley  tariff,  as  shown 
by  the  following:  • 

Hon.  John  W.  Gaines,  M.  C, 

1325  G  Street,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Sib — In  response  to  your  request  of  today  you  are  respectfully 
informed  that  from  July  1,  1897,  to  June  30,  1906,  the  duty  collected 
on  hides  and  skins  was  $20,894,094.65. 

The  Dingley  Act  went  into  effect  on  July  24,  1897,  so  you  can  see 
tliat  these  figures  practically  cover  the  entire  period  that  this  Act  has 
been  effective. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  J.  N.  Whitney, 

Acting  Chief  of  Bureau. 

Mr.  A.  W.  Rice  (National  Association  of  Boot  and  Shoe  Manu- 
facturers) at  a  meeting  of  the  National  Reciprocity  convention, 
November  19  and  20,  1901,  said: 

"The  fact  is  the  English  or  other  foreign  manufacturers  come  into 
this  •  market  (United  States)  and  buy  leather  made  from  South 
American  or  other  hide^s  from  10  to  15  per  cent,  cheaper  than  the 
American  manufacturer 'can  buy  it. 

They  take  the  leather  home,  make  it  into  shoes  and  in  competition 
with  American  manufacturers  send  it  to  Cuba  or  other  foreign  coun- 
tries and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  Cuba  imports  a  large  percentage 
of  its  shoes  from  Europe."      (Page  68,  Printed  Proceedings.) 


THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

The  able  speech  of  Mr.  Rucker,  of  Missouri,  during  the  last 
session  of  Congress  shows  in  another  light  the  benefits  of  a 
revenue  as  against  a  protective  tariff  in  the  increase  of  farming 
property  as  set  forth  in  the  following  table: 

Comparison  of  the  Estimated  Valuation  of  the  National  Wealth  of 
THE  United  States  and  the  Valuation  of  Farming  Property. 

Year. Estimated  national  wealth.  Value  of  all  farm  property. 

Total           .Percent  .p  .  ,             Per  cent,  of 

^^^^^           increase.  J^  _^              Increase. 

1850     $7,135,780,288     $3,967,343,580 

1860     16,159,616,068         126.46  7,980,493,063            101.15 

1870     30,068,518,507            86.07  8,899,966,578              11.52 

1880     43,642,000,000           45.14  12,180,501,538              36.84 

1890     65,037,091,197           49.02  16,082,267,689              32.03 

1900     95^000,000,000  45.90     20,439,901,164 27.09 

Again  he  shows  the  value  to  the  farmer  of  a  revenue  tariff: 

Statement  Showing  Increase  in  Acreage  of  Improved  Farm  Lands 
AND  Value  of  Live  Stock,  1850-1900. 

•L! 

Acreage  of 

Years.                  improved  Increase.  Value  of  live  Increase, 

farmlands.  stock. 

Per  cent.  Per  cent. 

1850 113,032,614  ....  $544,180,516          

1860 163,110,720  44.30  1,089,329,915  100.17 

1870 188,921,099  15.82  1,220,221,166  12.01 

1880 284,771,042  50.73  1,576,884,707  29.22 

1890 357,616,755  25.57  2,308,767,573  46.41 

1900 414,498,487  15.90  3,075,477,703  33.20 


166  THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

He  further  shows  that  the  business  of  the  country  increased 
more  under  the  protective  tariff  of  1880  than  under  the  present 
Dingley  tariff.  Worthy  of  note  here  is  a  comparison  of  the  in- 
crease in  manufacturing  in  1850-60  under  the  very  low  tariff  of 
that  period  as  against  that  of  the  table  below.  In  1860  the  in- 
crease was  87  per  cent.,  while  in  1900  it  was  only  44.1. 

Mr.  Rueker — I  desire  to  read  a  table  compiled  from  the  Abstract 
of  the  Twelfth  Census,  under  the  title  of  "Manufactures." 

Per  cent,  oi 
Date  of  census.  increase. 

1890    1880 
1900.  1890.  1880.  to        to 

1900.  1890. 


Number  of  estab- 
lishments   .  512,276  355,405  253,852     44.1     40.0 

Capital     $9,831,496,500     $6,525,050,759     $2,790,272,606     50.7  133.8 

Wage-earners  (av- 
erage number)     .  .5,314,539  4,251,535      . 25.0     55.6 

Total    wages.    $2,327,295,545     $1,891,209,696        $947,953,795     23.1     99.5 

Men  at  least  16 

year    old...  4,114,348    "  3,326,964      23.7    ' 

Wages     $2,019,954,204     $1,659,215,858      21.7      

Women  »at  least  16  • 

year   old    ..  1,031,608  803,688      28.4      .... 

W^ges     $281,679,649        $215,367,976      30.8     

Children  under  16 

years    old  168,583  120,885      39.5     

Wages     $25,661,692  $16,625,862      54.3     

Value  of 

products     .$13,010,036,514     $9,372,378,843     $5,369,597,191     38.8     74.5 

Halt  here  and  consider  the  startling  figures  that  the  table  given 
below  discloses  on  the  subject  of  life — food  whereby  the  wage- 
earner  may  support  his  family,  the  farmer  may  renew  his  strength 
for  the  plow-share,  and  the  honest  citizen  of  all  trades  may  live 
and  seek  the  Constitutional-given  rights  of  "life,  liberty  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness." 


COST  OF  LIVING  COMPARED  UNDER  WILSON   AND 
DINGLEY  TARIFFS. 

In  Bulletin  No.  59,  issued  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor  in  July,  1905,  I 
find  this  statement 

"The  price  of  all  the  more  important  articles  was  higher  in  1904 
than  the  average  for  the  ten-year  period,  1890  to  1899.  Bacon  was 
37.9  per  cent,  higher,  eggs  30.9  per  cent,  higher,  dry  or  pickled  pork 
25.8  per  cent,  higher,  fresh  pork  24  per  cent,  higher,  corn  meal  21.5 
per  cent,  higher,  potatoes  21.3  per  cent,  higher,  chickens  20.7  per  cent, 
higher,  fiour,  19.9  per  cent,  higher,  salt  ham,  18.4  per  cent,  higher. 

These  "conclusions,"  reached  after  a  most  careful  and  thorough 
investigation,  are  fully  justified  by  this  table  contained  in  Dun's 
Review  of  recent  date. 

Wholesale  cost — 

Classes  of  commodities.           July  1,  1897.  July  1,  1905.  Increase. 

Wilson  Act.  Dingley  Act.  Per  cent. 

Breadstuffs $10.59                 $18.83  77.87 

Meats 7.53                     8.61  14.41 

Dairy  and  garden  products 8.71                     9.98  14.55 

Other  food  articles 7.89                     9.92  25.80 

Clothing 13.81                   17.99  -30.26 

Metals 11.64                   15.92  36.71 

Miscellaneous 12.29                   17.06  38.84 

Total $72.46  $98.31  35.69 


THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  167 

Nor  is  this  all — indeed  there  is  no  branch  which  the  tariff  does 
not  affect.  Note  here  the  effect  of  the  low  tariff  of  1890  on  the 
amount  of  mortgages  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Dingley  law 
of  1900.  Here  is  food  for  thought  for  those  farmers  whose  old 
home  is  under  the  shadow  of  the  dreaded  mortgage: 

Mr.  Rucker — "I  now  read  a  table  prepared  from  information  ob- 
tained at  the  Census  Bureau  and  from  the  Abstract  of  the  Twelfth 
Census : 

1890.  1900.         Increase. 

Per  cent. 
Mortgage  indebtedness  in  the 

United  States $6,019,679,985       $8,394,728,733       39.48 

Number  of  mortgaged  homes 

in  the  United  States 1,696,890  2,361,606       39.11 

Per  cent,  of  families  in  United 

States  owning  free  homes.  34.4  31.8        .... 

"These  statistics  show  that  mortgage  indebtedness  in  the  United 
States  increased  nearly  40  per  cent,  between  1890  and  1900;  that  the 
number  of  mortgaged  homes  increased  over  39  per  cent.,  while  the 
percentage  of  families  owning  free  homes  decreased  nearly  3  per  cent." 

INCREASED   COST   OF   AGRICULTURAL    MACHINERY. 

Extracts  from  a  speech  of  the  Hon.  Adam  M.  Byrd,  of  Missis- 
sippi delivered  in  the  House  April  16,  1906. 

.  .  .  .  A  manufacturer  of  farm  wagons,  in  explaining  why  he 
advanced  prices  25  per  cent.,  said: 

"Less  than  two  years  ago  the  president  of  the  great  steel  corpora- 
tion testified  that  bar  iron  and  steel  could  be  produced  at  a  profit 
for  $12.50  per  ton,  and  for  steel  we  must  pay  $40,  or  over  200  per 
cent,  profit.  The  steel  magnates  tell  us  that  when  iron  was  sold  at 
$18  per  ton  the  price  was  too  low  and  was  a  breeder  of  panics;  but 
we  all  recall  the  fact  that  in  1893  the  Carnegie  properties  were  valued 
at  less  than  $10,000,000,  and  that  after  five  years  of  panic  and  $18 
prices,  Mr.  Carnegie  sold  his  interest  alone  in  these  properties  for 
$360,000,000.  This  was  350  per  cent,  profit  in  five  years,  or  72  per 
cent,  annually,  and  in  panic  times  too.  How  long,  O  Lord,  how  long, 
will  'the  dear  people'  be  thus  fooled?" 

.  .  .  .  Speaking  of  the  effect  of  protection,  Alexander  Hamilton 
said: 

"Duties  of  this  nature  evidently  amount  to  a  virtual  bounty  on  the 
domestic  fabrics." 

To  the  same  effect  John  Quincy  Adams  wrote: 

"The  duty  constitutes  a  part  of  the  price  of  the  whole  mass  of  the 
article  in  the  market.  It  is  substantially  paid  upon  the  article  of 
domestic  manufacture  as  well  upon  that  of  foreign  production.  Upon 
one  it  is  a  bounty,  upon  the  other  a  burden,  and  the  repeal  of  the  tax 
must  operate  as  an  equivalent  reduction  of  the  price  of  the  article, 
whether  foreign  or  domestic." 

.  .  .  .  In  this  connection  let  me  read  you  a  table  showing  the 
total  amount  of  four  leading  products  imported  into  the  United  States 
in  1905,  together  with  the  actual  per  cent,  rate  of  duty  paid  and 
amount  received  by  the  Government : 

Articles.  Value.  Duty.  Ad    valorem 

rate. 

Iron  and  steel  products $22,044,937 $8,422,237 38  per  cent. 

Meat  products 726,664 254,332 35      " 

Agricultural    13,876 2,775 20      " 

Glass  and  glassware 5,776,669 3,311,715 57      " 


168  THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

The  value  of  these  imports  plus  cost  of  the  transportation  and  plus 
the  duty  collected,  not  only  fixed  their  prices  in  this  market,  but 
also  the  prices  of  all  like  domestic  products  consumed     .     .     .     ." 

The  Canadian  Tariff  Commission  says: 

"Makers  of  threshing  machines,  feeders,  stackers,  weighers,  baggers, 
and  portable  engines  in  the  United  States  are  selling  these  things  in 
Canada  at  35  per  cent,  below  American  prices.  They  say  that  the 
discounts  are  that  much  below  what  any  jobber  can  obtain  them  for 
in  the  United  States,  and  that  a  trade  has  been  built  up  which 
amounts  to  $750,000  a  year." 

From  a  report  of  the  Census  Bureau,  showing  the  increase  of  wages 
per  hour,  from  1890  to  1903,  we  find  that  wages  in  four  protected 
industries  have  increased  less  than  in  non-protected  industries. 

Pbotected. 

Boiler  makers 0.02  per  cent. 

Iron  molders ^^^ 04     "       " 

Machinists ^4^*, 02     "       " 

Blacksmiths 02     "       " 

Non-Protected. 

Bricklayers 11  per  cent. 

Hod  carriers 06     "      " 

Painters 07     "       " 

Carpenters 08     "       " 

Synopsis  of  a  speech  by  Hon.  Leonidas  F.  Livingston,  September 
12,-1905,  before  a  Virginia  Farmers'  Convention: 

POINTS. 

1.  The  Tariff  Tax  discriminates  against  the  farmer,  but  is  easily 
advocated  because  it  is  paid  without  conscious  knowledge. 

2.  Economists  have  shown  that  the  tariff  tax  is  paid  as  follows: 
four-fifths  by  the  consumer  and  one-fifth  by  the  exporter  and  foreign 
manufacturer. 

3.  The  tariff  tax  has  unduly  enriched  one  class  at  the  expense  of 
another.  Every  time  a  farmer  gets  $1.00  the  manufacturer  gets 
$4.50. 

4.  Farmers  are  one-third  of  the  nation  and  get  one-sixth  of  the 
increase  in  national  wealth,  while  the  manufacturers,  one-fourth  of 
the  population,  receive  one-half. 

5.  Farmer's  wealth  doubles  in  from  thirty  to  forty  years;  the 
maufacturer's  in  from  ten  to  twenty  years. 

6.  The  farmer's  per  capita  wealth  was  about  stationary  from  1860 
to  1890,  while  the  manufacturer's  per  capita  increased  six-fold. 

7.  Of  every  $238.00  bought  by  farmers,  $18.00  goes  to  the  govern- 
ment and  $37.00  to  protected  trusts. 

8.  Protection  does  not  give  farmers  a  market  for  their  goods, 
while  insuring  one  for  the  manufacturers. 

9.  The  farmer  is  the  mainstay  of  the  country  and  his  interests 
demand  a  removal  of  the  legislation  which  enriches  another  class 
unnecessarily,  and  chiefly  at  the  farmer's  expense. 

ARGUMENT. 

The  protective  tariff  which  gives  an  advantage  to  the  manufactur- 
ing class  and  not  to  other  industrial  classes,  must  injuriously  affect 
the  improtected  classes.  If  the  protected  class  were  in  a  large 
majority  such  a  tariff  might  be  defended  on  the  principle  of  the 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number;  but  if  it  is  in  the  minority  it 
it  indefensible  upon  any  principle  consistent  with  Republican  institu- 
tions. 


THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  169 

Now,  the  entire  population  of  the  United  States  in  the  year  1900 
was  76,303,387 ;  and  a  little  less  than  39  per  cent,  of  these  were 
engaged  in  gainful  pursuits;  that  is,  there  were  29,074,117  persons 
fio  engaged.  These  were  so  divided  into  five  classes  according  to 
occupation. 

^  The  manufacturing  class  contained  7,085,992.  The  other  four 
classes  contained  21,988,125,  or  14,903,133  more  than  the  manufactur- 
ing class — more  than  three  times  as  many.  According  to  occupation 
there  were; 

In  agriculture 10,381,765 

In  trade  and  transportation 4,766,964 

In  domestic  and  personal  service 5,580,657 

These  twenty-two  million  people  and  all  their  dependents,  consti- 
tuting more  than  three-fourths  of  the  entire  population  of  the  country, 
are  discriminated  against  by  a  protective  tariff  in  favor  of  the  seven 
millions  of  persons  engaged  in  manufacturing;  and  this  is  done  in 
the  name  of  American  labor. 

THE  AGRICULTURE   CLASS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

"Now,  let  us,"  said  Mr.  Livingston,  "consider  how  the  farmer  is 
affected  by  this  system.  The  farmers  constitute  more  than  one-third 
of  the  whole  population.  They  produce  the  cereals,  the  meats,  and  the 
cotton  consumed  by  our  own  people." 

He  then  argued  that  the  farmers  are  the  exporters  of  those 
products.  They  must  compete  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  and 
cannot,  therefore,  by  any  possibility  derive  any  direct  benefit  from 
a  tariff  law.  Those  who  produce  grain  sell  about  10  or  15  per  cent, 
of  their  products  abroad — never  more  than  16  per  cent. — and  yet  the 
foreign  market  fixes  the  domestic  price.  They  cannot  sell  cheaper 
abroad  than  at  home;  because  they  have  no  monopoly  of  the  home 
market.  And  the  same  is  true  of  those  who  produce  meats  and 
cotton;  though  the  cotton  planters  sell  a  larger  percentage  of  their 
crops  abroad.  The  farmers  cannot  form  trusts  to  prevent  competition 
and  keep  prices  high;  because  they  are  widely  scattered,  and  also 
because  they  have  not  sufficient  capital  to  enable  them  to  hold  their 
products  for  long  periods.  Their  environment  compels  them  to  sell 
at  prices  fixed,  not  by  themselves,  but  by  foreigners,  and  according 
to  the  natural  law  of  supply  and  demand.  But  when  it  comes  to 
buying,  the  tariff  law  of  this  country  controls.  They  must  pay  taxes 
on  every  imported  article;  and  they  must  pay  a  price  equivalent  to 
plus  the  actual  value  of  every  domestic  article. 

"THE    EFFECT  OF   THE   TARIFF  ON    RURAL   WEALTH. 

"That  the  farmer  is  not  given  a  square  deal  by  the  operation  of 
high  protective  tariff  law  is  shown  by  the  effect  of  these  laws  on  rural 
and  urban  wealth. 

"The  growth  of  these  two  classes  in  wealth  is  shown  by  the  follow- 
ing table  taken  from  census  sources. 

"URBAN  AND  RURAL  WEALTH  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Millions  of  Dollars.  Percentage  of  Total. 

Years.  Urban.  Rural.  Total.  Urban.  Rural. 

1850 $3,169  $3,967  $7,136  44.4         65.6 

1860 8,190  7,980  16,160  50.6         49.4 

1870 15,155  8,900  24,055  63.0         37.0 

1880 31,538  12,104  43,642  72.2         27.8 

1890 49,055  15,980  65,037  75.4         24.6 

1900 73,786  20,514  94,300  78.2        21.8 


170  THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIPE. 

"From  1850  to  18C0,  the  years  of  low  tariff,  rural  wealth  doubled. 
From  1860  to  1890,  during  thirty  years  of  high  tariff,  it  barely 
doubled  again.  And  from  1890  to  1900  it  increased  barely  twenty- 
five  per  cent. 

*'0n  the  other  hand,  urban  wealth  doubled  in  every  decade,  except 
from  1880  to  1890,  and  from  1890  to  1900;  and  in  these  two  decades 
the  growth  was  about  fifty  per  cent."     *     *     * 

"Nor  is  this  all.  In  1850  the  farmer  owned  more  than  half  of  the 
country,  while  in  1900  he  owned  but  little  more  than  one-fifth. 

"While  the  average  per  capita  wealth  of  the  farmers  remained 
practically  stationary  from  1860  to  1900,  that  of  the  urbanites 
increased  six-fold. 

"Of  the  $78,000,000,000  increase  in  wealth  from  1860  to  1900  less 
than  one-sixth  of  it  went  to  the  farmers  who  make  up  about  one-half 
the  population;  while  of  the  $9,000,000,000  increase  during  the  free 
trade  era,  1850  to  1860,  more  than  44  per  cent,  of  it  went  to  the 
farmers."  , 

TAXES   PAID   BY    FARMERS. 

"Mr.  Byron  W.  Holt,  one  of  America's  greatest  economists,  has  com- 
puted the  tariff  taxes  paid  annually  by  farmers  in  an  admirable 
summary,  which  I  reproduce  for  a  few  comments  which  I  wish  to 
make  upon  it. 

THE    AVERAGE    FARMER'S   TARIFF   TAXES. 

Purchases.  Tariff      Tax  Paid 

Article  and  Quantity.  Cost.  To  U.  S.  To  Trusts. 

Sugar,  300  pounds $18  00  $6  50  $1  5u 

Woolen   goods 20  00  150  5  00 

Cotton   goods 12  00  50  2  75 

Silk  goods 4  00  50  100 

Linen  goods 2  00  20  25 

Leather  goods 12  00  40  160 

Hardware    3  00  05  95 

Chinaware    2  00  10  60 

Furniture    10  00  20  1  50 

Farm    Implements 30  00  25  5  00 

Window  glass,  one-third  box.            1  20  10  40 

Other  glass 150  15  45 

Lead,  in  paints,  etc.,  30  pounds           2  00  15  35 

Chemicals    2  50  30  90 

Tin  plate,  50  pounds 2  40  05  85 

Wire  and  other  nails,  100  lbs.           3  00  00  75 

Barb  and  other  wire,  80  lbs . .           3  00  00  1  00 

Liquor,  spirits,  etc 25  00  50  2  50 

Tobacco    10  00  60  1  90 

Miscellaneous    74  75  5  95  7  85 

Total $238  35       $18  00       $37   10       $55  10 

"On  the  average  every  farmer  buys  each  year  of  $238.35  in  sugar, 
woolen  goods,  cotton  goods,  silk  goods,  etc.  Out  of  this  $238.35,  the 
tariff  tax  takes  $55.00.  If  this  $55.00  went  to  the  government  there 
would  be  less  room  to  complain,  but  it  does  not.  The  most  careful 
calculations  show  that  of  the  $55.00  tariff  tax  paid  each  year  by  each 
farmer,  the  government  receives  $18.00  and  the  manufacturing  trusts 
$37.00. 


Total. 

$8  00 

6  50 

3  25 

1  50 

45 

2  00 

1  00 

70 

1  70 

5  25 

50 

60 

50 

1  20 

90 

75 

1  00 

3  00 

2  50 

13  80 

THE  FARMERS  AND  THE  TARIFF.  Ill 

"OUR    FARMER'S   SHARE   OF  THE   WORLD'S   CROPS. 

"Autlientic  census  figures  show  that  of  the  agricultural  crops  of 
the  world  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  furnish  the  following 
percentages : 

Of  Wool 10.8%  or  one-tenth. 

Of  Rye -. 20.   %    or  one-fifth. 

Of  Wheat 21.4%  or  more  than  one-fifth. 

Of  Barley 37.7%  or  more  than  two-fifths. 

Of  Corn 73.  %  or  more  than  seven-tenths. 

Of  Cotton 82.   %  or  more  than  eight-tenths. 

"With  these  figures  before  you  is  it  difficult  to  account  for  our 
national  prosperity?  We  are  the  feeders  of  the  world,  and  also  the 
clothiers  of  the  world.  The  farmers  of  the  United  States  are  the 
subseratum  upon  which  our  national  wealth  is  laid,  and  from  whom 
the  stream  of  our  marvelous  prosperity  flows  with  healing  power." 

WHAT   WE    SELL   ABROAD. 

Of  Oats $1,850,000 

Of  Rye 3,143,913 

Of  Barley 4,662,541 

Of  Fruits 18,057,677 

Of  Tobacco 35,250,899 

Of  Corn 40,540,837 

Of  Wheat 87,795,104 

Of  Cotton 317,065,271 


I 


Total $508,366,042 


vWhat  a  splendid  record! 
The  manufacturers.  Mith  all  their  special  privileges  and  predatory 
methods,  have  achieved  nothing  in  comparison  with  it.  If  power  and 
authority  are  the  rewards  of  merit,  the  farmers  should  rule  this 
country.  If  they  only  knew  their  own  power,  they  would  not  submit 
to  the  injustices  and  outrages  imposed  upon  them  by  selfish  interests. 
But  you  ask,  how  shall  they  assert  themselves?  I  answer,  let  them 
exert  the  only  real  power  they  possess,  the  power  of  the  ballot,  for  the 
defense  of  their  rights  and  interests.  Their  ballots  cannot  be  con- 
trolled by  trusts  unless  they  are  themselves  unworthy.  Let  them  send 
tariff  reformers  to  represent  them  in  Congress.  Then,  and  only  then, 
they  will  get  justice. 


172  DEPARTMENTAL  SCANDALS, 

DEPARTMENTAL  SCANDALS. 

SCANDALS  IN  THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT. 

SECRETARY     SHAW'S     ABSENTEEISM     AND     PERNICIOUS 

ACTIVITY— INEFFICIENCY  OF  THE  COMPTROLLER  OF 

THE  CURRENCY— THE  FAILURE  OF  THE  WALSH 

BANKS,      THE      ENTERPRISE      BANK      AND 

OTHERS— LITTLE  ROGUES  PROSECUTED, 

BUT  BIG  ONES  ALLOWED  TO  ESCAPE. 

In  the  Treasury  Department  we  find  the  Secretary  neglecting 
the  duties  of  his  office,  traveling  about  the  country  making 
speeches  for  the  stand-patters  and  carrying  on  a  campaign  for 
the  Presidential  nomination  in  1908,  but  still  drawing  a  salary 
which  he  does  not  earn,  and  setting  a  bad  example  for  his  sub- 
ordinates. 

WALSH   BANK   FAILURE. 

In  the  office  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Currency  there  have  been 
numerous  scandals  in  connection  with  national  banks  by  reason 
of  the  negligence  or  collusion  of  bank  inspectors.  The  officers  of 
some  of  these  banks  have  practically  loaned  to  themselves  under 
one  subterfuge  and  another  the  entire  assets,  deposits  and  every- 
thing else,  while  the  inspectors,  either  through  ignorance  or  fraud, 
have  reported  them  as  sound.  One  or  two  cases  of  recent  date 
will  illustrate  this  point.  Let  us  take  first  the  Walsh  banks  of 
Chicago.  The  capital  of  Walsh's  banks  was:  Chicago  National, 
$1,000,000;  Home  Savings,  $100,000  (from  Chicago  Securities, 
1905);  Equitable  Trust,  $500,000,  making  a  total  capital  of  the 
three  banks  of  $1,600,000.  The  deposits  of  the  Chicago  National 
were  about  $20,000,000;  of  the  Home  Savings,  $4,000,000,  and  of  the 
Equitable  Trust,  $2,000,000,  making  total  deposits  of  $26,000,000. 

Both  the  State  law  and  the  Federal  law  provide  that  no  bank 
shall  lend  over  10  per  cent,  of  its  capital  to  any  one  borrower. 
According  to  the  report  there  was  loaned  by  Walsh  to  Walsh 
$15,000,000,  or  800  per  cent,  of  the  capital  of  the  combined  banks. 
These  loans  were  ingeniously  handled,  so  as,  if  possible,  to  avoid 
liability.  The  banks  carried  a  vast  amount  of  bonds  of  Walsh's 
railroads,  coal  mines,  and  stone  quarries,  and  in  some  cases  an 
amount  stated  to  be  $2,000,000,  was  loaned  on  notes  signed  by  the 
names,  but  not  with  the  signatures,  of  people  who  either  were 
ignorant  of  their  names  being  used,  or,  at  any  rate,  had  no  interest 
in  the  transaction. 

The  names  of  bell  boys  and  other  underlings  about  the  bank 
were  signed  to  notes. 

It  was  contended  by  Secretary  Shaw,  as  quoted  in  the  Chicago 
press,  and  not  denied  by  him,  that  Walsh,  in  this  system  of  finance, 
did  nothing  beyond  what  most  banks  do  in  making  excess  loans. 

Had  Walsh  succeeded  in  his  plans  and  made  a  profit,  that  profit 
would  have  been  his,  and  would  not  have  redounded  to  the  benefit 


DEPARTMENTAL  SCANDALS.  173 

u_ , , . 

of  either  his  depositors  or  his  stockholders.  As  he  failed,  it  was 
merely  incidental  that  the  other  banks  saved  his  depositors.  His 
stockholders  certainly  lost. 

In  May,  1906,  Mr.  W.  T.  Fenton,  a  member  of  the  Chicago  Clear- 
ing House,  testified  before  the  House  Committee  on  Banking  and 
Cut-rency,  as  follows: 

"The  banks  of  Chicago  were  called  together  on  a  Sunday;  the 
members  of  the  clearing  house  stayed  up  all  night  Sunday  night; 
they  found  the  Chicago  National  Bank  was  hopelessly  insolvent.  Not 
a  member  of  the  clearing  house  suspected  that  there  was  anything 
wrong  with  it. 

"The  members  of  the  Chicago  Clearing  House,  after  sitting  up  all 
night  to  avert  what  they  thought  would  be  a  calamity,  assumed  the 
obligations  of  that  bank  and  took  the  bank's  assets.  The  immediate 
cause  of  the  failure  of  that  concern  was  over-loans  to  concerns  in 
which  the  president  of  the  hank  was  interested.  Correspondence  was 
shown  at  that  meeting  of  the  clearing  house  running  back  ^over  a 
period  of  three  years — and  I  am  not  saying  this  to  cast  refl'ections 
on  the  Comptroller's  department  or  on  any  of  the  examiners  or 
officials — ^but  here  are  the  facts,  tha;^  three  years  before  that  bank 
closed  the  Comptroller's  department  knew  that  the  president  of  the 
institution  had  loaned  $5,000,000  to  a  concern  in  which  he  was 
interested;  and  by  the  night  we  took  over  the  assets  he  had  used 
$15,000,000  of  the  assets  of  that  bank.  And  here  is  one  of  the  results 
of  familiarity  with  the  violation  of  this  law.  It  had  been  done  so 
long,  and  had  been  overlooked  and  temporized  with  until  it  grew  and 
grew,  and  finally  absorbed  the  entire  institution;  and  we  were  called 
upon,  in  order  to  maintain  the  financial  integrity  of  our  city,  to 
liquidate  that  institution,  and  take  its  assets  and  assume  its  debts." 


THE   ENTERPRISE   BANK   FAILURE. 

The  Enterprise  National  Bank  of  Allegheny,  Pennsylvania, 
failed  in  October,  1905.  It  had  at  the  time  about  $800,000  of  State 
funds  among  its  deposits.  It  had  loaned  large  sums,  nearly 
$700,000  in  all,  to  politicians,  and  to  the  Santa  Fe  Central  Railroad 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Development  Company  of  New  Mexico, 
which  were  controlled  by  "Bull"  Andrews  and  other  members  of 
the  old  Quay  ring. 

This  failure  was  a  Republican  affair  all  round.  A  dispatch  to 
the  Washington  Post,  dated  Pittsburgh,  October  18,  1905,  said: 

"It  is  conceded  by  all  that  the  expose  of  today  deals  one  of  the 
hardest  blows  ever  suffered  by  the  Republicanism  of  Pennsylvania! 
Francis  J.  Torrance,  head  of  the  Standard  Manufacturing  Company 
and  one  of  the  leading  Republicans  of  Pennsylvania,  has  been  closely 
identified  with  the  workings  of  the  bank  now  in  the  hands  of  a 
receiver,  and  he  is  lying  at  the  point  of  death.  Clarke,  the  cashier, 
now  dead,  with  W.  R.  Andrews,  formerly  of  Pittsburg,  now  Territorial 
Delegate  of  New  Mexico  at  Washington,  and  former  State  Senator 
Arthur  Kennedy  had,  it  appears,  been  in  several  large  deals.  One  of 
them  was  the  selling  of  railroad  property  to  the  Santa  Fe  road.  The 
option,  which,  if  closed,  meant  a  fortune  to  each  of  those  named,  was 
not  taken  up  by  the  Santa  Fe  people  on  Saturday,  but  was  allowed  to 
expire.'* 

The  Treasury  Department  doesn't  interfere  with  such  men, 
unless  they  fail  outright,  nor  until  the  matter  can  no  longer  be 
concealed.    No  doubt,  the  political  complexion  of  such  affairs 


174  DEPARTMENTAL  SCANDALS. 

had  also  much  to  do  with  the  refusal  of  a  Republican  Congress  to 
pass  the  Tillman  resolution,  directing  the  Committee  on  Finance 
to  inquire  whether  or  not  the  national  banks  have  made  contribu- 
tions in  aid  of  political  committees. 

CASSIE    CHADWICK    GOES   TO    PRISON,    BUT   THE    BIG 
ROGUES  ALL  GO   FREE. 

After  exposures  have  been  made  by  outsiders,  and  when  con- 
cealment is  no  longer  possible,  the  Government  takes  hold  and 
eagerly  prosecutes  small  culprits  without  political  connections  or 
influence,  like  Cassie  Chadwick  and  people  of  that  class,  and  then 
boasts  of  its  great  work.  In  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  Watson, 
of  Indiana,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  27,  1906,  it  was 
said :  v 

"Tl^e  Government  has  been  very  vigilant  in  enforcing  the  national 
banking  laws.  Under  this  Administration  several  important  cases 
have  been  tried. 

"The  celebrated  Cassie  Chadwick  case  in  Ohio  was  prosecuted  by 
the  Government,  and  the  defendant  was  sentenced  to  a  term  of  ten 
years  in  the  Ohio  penitentiary  for  conspiracy  in  the  misappropriation 
of  the  funds  of  the  Citizen's  National  Bank  of  Oberlin,  Ohio. 

"Arthur  B.  Speer  was  jointly  indicted  with  Cassie  Chadwick  and 
was  sentenced  to  seven  years  in  the  penitentiary. 

"In  the  northern  district  of  Iowa,  W.  R.  Brown,  a  national  bank 
official,  was  indicted  for  violation  of  the  national  bank  laws.  He  was 
sentenced  to  five  years  in  the  penitentiary." 

But  what  about  the  looting  of  the  great  Maverick  Bank,  of 
Boston,  the  Walsh  banks  of  Chicago,  the  Enterprise  National 
Bank,  of  Allegheny,  Pa.,  and  the  numerous  other  banks  run  in 
the  interest  of  Republicans  and  looted  by  them?  Why  has  not 
the  administration  prosecuted  the  criminals  in  those  cases? 
Cassie  Chadwick  and  the  other  little  criminals  went  to  jail,  of 
course.  But  the  great  criminals,  who  habitually  violate  the  bank- 
ing laws  in  the  way  that  Walsh  did,  are  not  disturbed,  because 
they  have  political  influence. 

Are  they  able  to  contribute  large  sums  to  Republican  campaign 
funds? 


WMAf  WAS  DONS  During  the  canvass.        175 


WHAT  WAS  DONE  DURING  THE  CANVASS  LAST  YEAR 

(1896)  BY  NATIONAL  CITY  BANK  OF  NEW 

YORK  LEADS  TO  CORRUPT  SALE  OF 

NEW  YORK  CUSTOM  HOUSE. 

A    CONTINUOUS    SCANDAL    FROM    1896   TO    1906   AND   THE 
END    NOT    IN    SIGHT.      UNDER    A    REPUBLICAN 
ADMINISTRATION. 

"LEST  WE   FORGET." 

Mr.  A.  B.  Hepburn  promptly  reminded  Mr.  Gage  of  "what  was  done 
during  the  last  canvass"  (1896),  by  the  National  City  Bank,  and  in 
1897  asks  a  fair  return: 

National  City  Bank  of  New  York, 

New  York,  June  5,  1897. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Gage:  The  National  City  Bank,  of  this  city,  of 
which  I  recently  became  vice-president  through  the  consolidation  of 
the  business  of  the  Third  National  with  it,  is  one  of  the  banks  desig- 
nated as  a  United  States  depository,  and  I  write  to  request  that  in 
any  changes  which  may  be  made  under  the  administration  we  may 
not  be  disturbed  in  this  respect.  We  should  like  to  remain  a  United 
States  depository  as  at  present.  /  Of  course  the  bank  is  very  strong, 
and  if  you  will  take  the  pains  to  look  at  our  list  of  directors  you  loill 
see  that  ice  also  have  very  great  political  claims  in  view  of  what  was 
done  during  the  canvass  last  year. 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  B.  Hepburn. 
Hon.  Lyman  J.  Gage, 

United  States  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C 

The  favor  was  granted. 

Having  again  aided  in  the  election  of  a  Republican  Congress 
in  the  next  election,  this  bank  asks  for  and  receives  another  favor, 
which  was  "conceived  in  iniquity  and  born  in  sin,"  designed  to 
be  a  fraud,  is  a  continuing  scandal  and  an  outrage  on  the  State  of 
and  city  of  New  York  and  the  Federal  Government. 


176  8AL^  of  N^W  YOUK  CUSTOM  H0V8E. 


SALE  NEW  YORK  CUSTOM  HOUSE  PROPERTY. 

STILL  EXEMPT  FROM  TAXES  BY  A  "TRICK"  OF  GAGE  AND 

THIS  BANK. 

The  sale  of  the  old  custom  house' in  New  York  city  is  one  of 
the  chief  blots  in  the  McKinley  administration.  This  fraud  and 
scandal  was  engineered  by  Secretary  Gage  in  July,  1899.  He  sold 
the  custom  house  on  Wall  street  in  New  York  to  the  National 
City  Bank,  a  Rockefeller  establishment,  for  the  price  of  $3,265,000, 
about  one  third  the  value  of  the  property,  which  is  said  to  be 
worth  fully  $10,000,000. 

This  transaction  is  understood  to  have  followed  a  munificent 
contribution  to  Mr.  Hanna's  fund  in  1896.  It  has  been  said  that 
this  property,  now  considered  to  be  worth  $10,000,000,  has  been 
practically  transferred  to  the  bank  by  the  skill  of  a  bookkeeper, 
without  the  actual  transfer  of  one  solitary  cent  of  money  beyond 
the  contribution  to  the  campaign  fund.  It  is  the  most  marvelous 
transaction  in  history.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  deposits 
with  the  bank  from  $5,000,000  to  $15,000,000  of  United  States 
funds  without  interest.  The  bank  in  making  payment  for  the 
property  simply  credited  the  Government's  account  with  $3,215,000, 
leaving  an  unpaid  balance  of  $50,000.  The  Government  continues 
to  occupy  the  building,  paying  the  bank  a  rental  therefor  of 
$130,600  a  year.  In  the  ten  years  the  bank  draws  in  rentals  from 
the  Government  $1,306,000  and  in  interest  on  Government  deposits 
probably  another  million.  In  the  meantime,  the  Government 
declines  to  even  receive  a  credit  for  the  $50,000  balance  on  the 
building,  thus  saving  for  the  bank.  State  and  city  taxes  in  ten 
years,  amounting  to  $750,000,  since  the  title  does  not  pass  from 
the  Government  until  that  $50,000  is  paid. 

The  Democrats  in  Congress  have  year  after  year  opposed  the 
appropriation  of  money  from  the  Treasury  to  pay  rent  under  this 
contract,  and  in  1905,  succeeded  in  striking  out  the  item  for  that 
purpose. 

But,  as  a  rule,  the  payments  have  been  regularly  provided  for 
•n  the  Sundry  Civil  bill;  and  this  year  (1906)  that  bill  carried 
the  usual  item  of  $130,600  for  the  rental  of  a  house  to  which  the 
Government  still  holds  the  title;  and,  moreover,  the  General 
Deficiency  bill  carried  a  similar  appropriation  to  cover  the 
deficiency  caused  by  striking  the  item  from  the  Sundry  Civil  bill 
last  year.  The  fact  that  such  an  item  was  in  the  General 
Deficiency  bill  was  guarded  with  the  utmost  secrecy.  No  mention 
of  it  was  made  in  the  report  of  the  Appropriations  Committee. 
But  when  the  bill  was  under  consideration  in  the  House,  on  June 
26,  1906,  Mr.  Sulzer,*  who  has  directed  the  fight  on  the  fioor  of 
the  House  against  this  appropriation  for  the  last  six  or  seven 
years,  made  a  point  of  order  against  the  appropriation. 

"The  Chair  holds  that  this  is  a  debt  owed  by  the  Government 
and  that  it  should  be  paid,"  said  Mr.  Crumpacker,  of  Indiana, 
who  was  temporarily  presiding. 


SALE  OF  NEW  YORK  CUSTOM  H0U8E.  177 


"If  it  is  a  just  debt  the  National  City  Bank  can  recover  through 
the  Court  of  Claims,"  Mr.  Sulzer  said.  "It  is  the  same  old  steal. 
That  bank  is  withholding  $50,000  of  the  purchase  price  from  the 
Government  for  the  sole  purpose  of  defrauding  the  State  and  city 
of  New  York  of  taxes.  So  long  as  the  bank  does  not  pay  the 
$50,000,  the  deed  and  title  to  the  custom  house  property  remains 
with  the  Government." 

Mr.  Fitzgerald,  of  Brooklyn,  said  the  contract  was  a  scandal 
and  a  disgrace. 

Mr.  Sulzer's  motion  was  lost — 65  to  88.  Every  Republican  in 
the  House,  except  McCreary,  of  Pennsylvania,  voted  against  it. 

John  Wesley  Gaines,  of  Tennessee,  moved  to  deduct  the  $50,000 
owed  by  the  National  City  Bank  -to  the  Government  from  the 
$130,600  appropriation  for  rent  and  give  the  bank  a  deed  for  the 
property,  so  that  the  State  and  city  of  New  York  could  collect 
the  taxes.  This  was  voted  down— 72  to  40~the  Republicans 
voting  no. 

After  getting  the  custom  house  property  for  nothing,  and 
receiving  4  per  cent,  interest,  under  the  name  of  rent,  on  what 
it  pretended  to  have  paid  to  the  Government  under  the  spurious 
contract,  the  National  City  Bank  made  Lyman  J.  Gage  president 
of  the  United  States  Trust  Company  and  his  assistant,  F.  A. 
Vanderlip,  vice-president  of  the  bank  itself.  In  view  of  the  many 
profitable  privileges  which  have  lately  been  granted  to  the  same 
bank,  the  question  is  often  asked  whether  Secretary  Shaw  is  also 
to  become  the  head  of  a  metropolitan  banking  institution  con- 
trolled by  National  City  Bank  and  Standard  Oil  capital. 

Here  are  some  of  the  letters  that  passed  between  the  president 
of  this  bank  and  Secretary  Gage,  which  show  they  are  both  guilty 
of  this  infamous  outrage: 

The  National  City  Bank  of  New  Yobk, 

New  York,  August  18,  1899. 

Deab  Sib  :  In  accordance  with  the  permission  given  us  when  I  had 
the  pleasure  of  speaking  with  you  over  the  telephone  today,  this  bank 
will  transfer  on  its  books  tomorrow,  August  19,  to  the  credit  of  the 
Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  $3,215,000  as  payment  on 
account  of  our  purchase  of  the  old  custom  house  property,  for  which 
we  will  issue  the  customary  receipt.  Please  instruct  the  Assistant 
Treasurer  of  the  United  States  in  this  city  to  receive  and  hold  as 
security  for  public  moneys  the  required  amount  of  United  States 
bonds. 

As  the  check  for  $150,000,  inclosed  with  our  bid  and  now  in  your 
possession,  has  not  been  used,  will  you  kindly  return  it  to  us?   ^ 

We  shall  make  the  above  payment  of  $3,215,000  upon  the  under- 
standing, of  course,  that  we  are  not  to  be  liable  for  any  taxes  or  water 
rates  upon  the  property  so  long  as  you  remain  in  possession  and  the 
balance  of  $50,000  remains  unpaid  and  the  deed  is  undelivered. 

We  presume  you  are  forwarding  today  the  deed  and  contract,  as  the 
same  were  sent  to  you  last  Wednesday. 

It  seems  from  an  examination  of  the  title  that  the  property  contains 
583  square  feet  less  than  we  supposed,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  city 
has  used  a  portion  of  the  original  tract  as  a  street,  and  our  attorneys 
advise  us  that  it  has  had  possession  so  long  that  probably  we  could 
not  regain  possession  of  it  even  after  a  protracted  litigation. 

Will  you  please  give  us  a  formal  certificate,  imder  seal,  stating  what 
notice  you  gave,  by  advertisement  or  otherwise,  of  the  sale  of  the 
custom  house  property,  and  that,  in  your  judgment,  this  was  in  com- 
pliance with  the  act  of  Congress,  in  respect  to  due  advertisement. 


178        DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 

Assuring  you  of  our  appreciation  of  your  attention,  I  am, 
Yours  very  truly, 

James  Stillman, 

President. 
Hon.  Lyman  J.  Gage, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington,  D.  C. 

— House  Document  264,  Fifty-sixth  Congress,  fust  session. 

Here  is  part  of  Gage's  reply,  August  21,  1899: 

As  to  the  taxes  against  said  property,  you  are  advised  that  the 
Department's  understanding  of  this  matter  is  just  the  same  as  yours, 
and  that  until  we  deliver  you  the  deed  you  Avill  not  have  to  pay  the 
taxes  to  the  city  of  New  York. 


DEMOCRATS  FIRST  TO  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED 
LABOR. 

FIRST  TO  INTRODUCE  ANDENFORCE  AN  EIGHT-HOUR  LAW. 

The  Democratic  party  met  in  convention  in  New  York  in  July, 
1868,  nominated  Horatio  Seymour  for  President  and  in  its  plat- 
form inserted  the  following  plank: 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  sympathize  cordially  with  the 
workingmen  of  the  United  States  in  their  efforts  to  protect  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  laboring  classes  of  the  country. 

The  Republican  party  met  in  May  of  the  same  year  in  Chicago 
and  nominated  Ulysses  S.  Grant  for  President,  but  failed  to  men- 
tion a  single  sentence  in  its  platform  about  the  laboring  classes 
or  organized  labor. 

The  unions  appealed,  through  their  representatives,  to  the 
Democratic  convention  for  succor  and  aid,  with  the  above  result. 
Thus,  the  party  of  Jackson  and  Jefferson  has  the  honor  of  being 
the  first  to  champion  in  its  platform  the  interests  of  organized 
labor — an  enviable  distinction. 

Nor  was  this  all  which  they  did  for  the  cause  of  labor.  The 
first  eight-hour  law  ever  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives was  brought  in  by  a  Democrat,  Mr.  Rogers,  of  New  Jersey. 
But  his  efforts  were  in  vain,  for  the  Congress  was  Republican  and 
the  bill  died  in  the  committee  room. 

Again  a  Democrat  attempted  to  aid  the  labor  party  by  intro- 
ducing in  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  another  eight-hour  law.  But 
the  Republicans — then  in  power — quietly  buried  it. 

The  same  fate  was  doled  out  to  the  Rogers  eight-hour  bill,  rein- 
troduced by  Mr.  Julian,  of  Indiana,  March  14,  1867. 

Against  the  protest  of  such  Republicans  as  John  Sherman, 
General  Banks  by  the  aid  of  Senator  Thomas  A.  Hendricks, 
finally  got  an  eight-hour  law  passed  in  1868. 

But  what  was  the  fate  of  this  law,  once  it  was  enacted?  It 
slept  upon  the  statute  books  during  Republican  administrations, 
but  was  strongly  enforced  when  the  Democrats  were  in  power. 


DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR.        179 

It  is  safe  to  say  there  has  not  been  a  statute  enacted  by  Con- 
gress for  the  relief  of  the  "Workingmen  of  the  United  States,"  or 
"Organized  Labor,"  that  the  Democrats  have  not  given  it  their 
hearty  support. 

THE   DEMOCRACY  AND  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 

"WE  ARE  OPPOSED  TO  GOVERNMENT  BY  INJUNCTION: 
WE  DENOUNCE  THE  BLACK  LIST:  AND  WE  FAVOR  ARBITRA- 
TION AS  A  MEANS  OF  SETTLING  DISPUTES  BETWEEN  COR- 
PORATIONS AND  THEIR  EMPLOYEES."  (Democratic  Platform 
of  1900.) 

"We  especially  object  to  government  by  injunction  as  a  new  and 
highly  dangerous  form  of  oppression,  by  which  Federal  judges,  in 
contempt  of  the  laws  of  the  States  and  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  become 
at  once  legislators,  judges  and  executioners,  and  we  approve  the  bill 
recently  passed  by  ine  United  States  Senate,  and  now  pending  in 
the  House,  relative  to  contempts  in  Federal  courts,  and  providing  for 
trials  by  jury  in  certain  cases  of  contempt." — Democratic  Platform  of 
1896,  reaffirmed  in   1900. 

"We  favor  the  enactment  and  administration  of  laws  giving  labor 
and  capital  impartially  their  just  rights.  Capital  and  labor  ougiit  not 
to  be  enemies.  Each  is  necessary  to  Ine  other.  Each  has  its  rights, 
but  the  rights  of  labor  are  certainly  no  less  'vested',  no  less  'sacred' 
and  no  less  'inalienable'  than  the  rights  of  capital. 

"We  favor  arbitration  of  differences  between  corporate  employers 
and  their  employees,  and  a  strict  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  law 
on  all  Government  work. 

"We  approve  the  measure  which  passed  the  United  States  Senate 
in  1896,  but  which  a  Republican  Congress  has  ever  since  refused  to 
enact,  relating  to  contempts  in  Federal  courts  a7id  providing  for  trial 
by  jury  in  cases  of  indirect  contempt.*' 

The  prominence  given  to  the  dispute  between  organized  labor 
and  its  enemies  by  the  attitude  of  Speaker  Cannon,  Mr.  Littlefleld, 
of  Maine,  and  the  present  administration  in  this  campaign,  makes 
it  proper  to  review  in  this  place  the  record  of  the  Democratic  and 
Republican  parties  on  the  labor  question. 

On  February  26,  1900,  Mr.  Ridgely,  of  Kansas,  introduced  a  bill 
(H.  R.  8917,  Fifty-sixth  Congress,  first  session): 

"To  limit  the  meaning  of  the  word  'conspiracy'  and  also  the  use 
of  restraining  orders,  and  injunctions  as  applied  to  disputes  between 
employers  and  employees  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  Terri- 
tories, or  engaged  in  commerce  between  the  several  States,  District  of 
Columbia  and  Territories,  and  with  foreign  nations." 

The  bill  was  drawn,  according  to  Mr.  Ridgely,  "by  the  attorneys 
employed  by  the  united  labor  organizations  of  this  country."  It 
was  drawn  "in  the  belief  that  it  would  come  within  the  constitu- 
tional limits."  (Congressional  Record,  February  18,  1901,  p. 
2592.)     It  provided: 

"That  no  agreement,  combination,  or  contract  by  or  between  two 
or  more  persons  to  do,  or  procure  to  be  done,  or  not  to  do,  or  procure 
not  to  be  done,  any  act  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  any  trade 
dispute  between  employers  and  employees  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
or  in  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  or  who  may  be  engaged  in 
trade  or  commerce  between  any  Territory  and  another,  or  between 
any  Territory  or  Territories  and  any  State  or  States,  or  the  District 
of  Columbia,  or  with  foreign  nations,  or  between  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia and  any  State  or  States  or  foreign  nations,  shall  be  deemed  crimi- 


180        DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 

nal ;  nor  shall  those  engaged  therein  be  indictable  or  otherwise  punish- 
able for  the  crime  of  conspiracy,  if  such  act  committed  by  one  person 
would  not  be  punishable  as  a  crime  (nor  shall  such  agreement,  combi- 
nation, or  contract  be  considered  as  in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce), 
nor  shall  any  restraining  order  or  injunction  be  issued  with  relation 
thereto."     (C.  R.  vol.  34,  p.  2592.) 

Two  reports  were  made  on  this  bill.  The  majority  report,  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Littlefield,  of  Maine,  was  concurred  in  by  the  other 
ten  Republican  members  of  the  House  Judiciary  Committee.  It 
will  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Record,  vol.  34,  p.  2590.  It 
proposed  to  amend  the  Ridgely  bill,  by  striking  out  the  words, 
"nor  shall  such  agreement,  combination  or  contract  be  considered 
as  in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce,"  and  by  adding  the  following 
proviso: 

"That  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  threats  to  injure 
tlie  person  or  the  property,  business,  or  occupation  of  any  person,  firm, 
association,  or  corporation,  to  intimidation  or  coercion,  or  to  any 
acts  causing  or  intended  to  cause  any  illegal  interference,  by  overt 
acts,  with  the  rights  of  others.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  exempt 
from  punishment,  otherwise  than  as  herein  excepted,  any  person 
guilty  of  conspiracy,  for  which  punishment  is  now  provided  by  any 
act  of  Congress,  but  such  act  of  Congress  shall,  as  to  the  agreements, 
combinations,  and  contracts  hereinbefore  referred  to,  be  construed  as 
if  this  act  were  therein  contained."      (C.  R.,  p.  2592,  Vol.  34.) 

The  representatives  of  organized  labor  vigorously  opposed  these 
amendments;  and  the  five  Democratic  members  of  the  committee 
supported  the  position  of  the  labor  men,  and  filed  a  minority 
report,  in  which  they  said: 


"It  is  clear  to  our  minds  that  it  was  never  the  legislative  intent 
that  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law  of  July  2,  1890,  which  prohibits 
contracts  and  agreements  'in  restraint  of  trade  and  commerce,'  should 
apply  to  cooperative  efforts  of  workingmen  in  contemplation  or 
furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute,  especially  when  such  efforts,  if  put 
forth  by  a  single  individual,  would  not  constitute  a  crime. 

"The  first  amendment  proposed  by  the  majority  strikes  out  the 
words  *Nor  shall  such  agreement,  combination,  or  contract  be  con- 
sidered as  in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce." 

"There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  striking  out  these  words.  They 
do  not  say  that  *no  agreement,  combination  or  contract,'  etc.,  made 
by  employees  shall  be  considered  in  restraint  of  trade;  but  the 
language  is  'no  such  agreement/  etc.;  that  is,  no  agreement,  etc.,  to 
do  an  act,  etc.,  which,  if  done  by  a  single  individual,  would  not  con- 
stitute a  crime.  Within  that  limitation,  and  that  alone,  would  the 
acts  of  employees  be  taken  out  of  the  operation  of  the  Sherman  anti- 
trust law  by  the  pending  bill. 

"The  majority  report  does  not  seem  to  recognize  this  important 
distinction. 

"We  think  the  words  stricken  out  should  remain  in  the  bill. 

"The  second  amendment  proposed  by  the  majority  is  the  insertion 
of  the  following  proviso  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  line  on  the  second 
page. 

''Provided,  That  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  threat 
to  injure  the  person  or  the  property,  business  or  occupation  of  any 
person,  firm  or  association  or  corporation,  to  intimidation  or  coercion, 
or  to  any  acts  causing  or  intended  to  cause  any  illegal  interference 
by  overt  acts  with  the  rights  of  others." 

"If  we  had  well-defined  meanings  for  the  terms  'threats  to  injure,' 
'intimidations,'  'coercion,'  'acts  causing  or  intended  to  cause  an  illegal 
interference,'  etc.,  there  might  t^e  no  special  objection  to  the  purpose 


DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR,      i   181 

intended  by  tliis  amendment.  But  in  the  absence  of  such  well-defined 
ideas  the  etiect  of  this  amendment  will  be  either  (1)  to  permit  (and 
even  to  suggest  by  implication)  such  latitude  of  judicial  construction 
as  might  negative  all  the  good  in  the  bill,  or  (2)  to  encumber  the 
statute  with  a  useless  declaration  of  principles  of  recognized  law." 
(Cong.  Record,  p.  2591,  vol.  34.) 

This  report  was  signed  by  Messrs.  Terry,  Clayton,  Smith, 
Fleming  and  DeArmond. 

Speeches  were  made  against  the  amendments  by  Messrs.  Clay- 
ton, Fleming,  Ridgely  and  Terry,  and  for  the  amendments  by 
Messrs.  Littlefield,  Overstreet  and  Ray. 

Mr.  Littlefield  moved  "a  suspension  of  the  rules  in  order  to  put 
on  its  passage  the  bill  with  the  amendments  reported  by  the 
committee.  (Cong.  Record,  vol.  34,  p.  2589.)  And  the  following 
members  voted  for  that  motion: 


Alexander 

Bailey,  Kan. 

Bishop 

Bowei-eiock 

Brick 

Brosius 

Brownlow 

Bull 

Burke,  S.  D. 

Burkett, 

Cannon 

Capron 

Coclirane,  N.  Y. 

Crumpacker 


Curtig 

Dalzell 

Dayton 

Emerson 

Eseh 

Gardner,  N. 

Gibson 

(Jraham 

Hall 

Ilaugen 

ITawley 

Hepburn 

Hill 

Hitt 


Hopkins 

Ray,  N.  Y. 

Jack 

Reeves 

Kerr,  Ohio. 

Roberts 

Lacey 

Smith,  Iowa. 

Lanhara 

Spalding 

Littlefield 

Steele 

Londenslager 

Stewart,  N.  Y. 

Lybrand 

Tayler,  Ohio. 

Mondell 

Van  Voorhis 

Morris 

Vreeland 

Mudd 

Wright 

O'Grady 

Young 

Overstreet 

Payne 

The  following  members  were  paired: 

Mr.  Sherman  with  Mr.  Driggs. 

Mr.  MetcaFf  with  Mr.  Wheeler,  of  Kentucky. 

Mr.  Henry  C.  Smith  with  Mr.  Taylor,  of  Alabama. 

For  this  day  : 

Mr.  Eddy  with  Mr.  Carmack. 

Mr.  Hull  with  Mr.  Hay. 

Mr.  Mann  with  Mr.  Jett. 

Mr.  Butler  with  Mr,  Rhea,  of  Virginia. 

Mr.  Dovener  with  Mr.  Polk. 

Mr.  Boutell,  of  Illinois,  with  Mr.  Griggs. 

Mr.  Freer  with  Mr.  Elliott. 

Mr.  Woods  with  Mr.  Noonan. 

Mr.  Cannon  with  Mr.  McRae. 

Mr.  Tawney  with  Mr.  De  Grafifenreid'. 

Mr.  Loud  with  Mr.  Livingston. 

Mr.  Hemenway  with  Mr.  Howard. 

Mr.  Weymouth  with  Mr.  King. 

Mr.  Kahn  with  Mr.  Cooper,  of  Texas. 

Mr.  Gaston.     (Cong,  Record,  p.  2598,  vol.  34.) 

The  Record  shows  that  Mr.  Cannon  voted  for  Littlefield's 
motion. 

Littlefield's  motion  was  defeated  by  the  Democrats,  aided  by  a 
few  Republicans,  among  whom  were  Moody,  of  Massachusetts, 
now  Attorney-General,  and  Cooper,  of  Wisconsin. 

Nothing  further  was  done  in  regard  to  the  Ridgely  bill  in  the 
Fifty-sixth  Congress.  But  early  in  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress, 
Mr.  Grosvenor,  Republican,  of  Ohia,  introduced  one  very  similar 
to  it,  entitled,  "a  bill  to  limit  the  meaning  of  the  word  'conspiracy,' 
and  the  use  of  'restraining  orders  and  injunctions'  in  certain 
cases." 

The  Grosvenor  bill  differed  from  the  Ridgely  bill  only  by  adding 
the  following  clause: 


"Nothing  in  this  act  shall  e.\emi)t  from  punishment,  otherwise  than 
as  herein  excepted,  any  persons  guilty  of  conspiracy  for  which  punish- 


182        DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 

ment  is  now  provided  by  any  act  of  Congress;  but  such  act  of 
Congress  shall,  as  to  the  agreements,  combinations,  and  contracts 
hereinbefore  referred  to,  be  construed  as  if  this  act  were  therein  con- 
tained." This  bill  was  favored  by  organized  labor.  It  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives  May  2,  1902,  without  a  dissenting  voice  or 
vote,  as  the  following  extract  from  the  Record  of  that  date  shows : 

"Mr.  Ray,  of  New  York.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  call  up  the  bill  (H.  R. 
11060)  to  limit  the  meaning  of  the  word  'conspiracy'  and  the  use  of 
'restraining  orders  and  injunctions'  in  certain  cases. 

"The  bill  was  read,  as  follows: 

"Be  it  enacted,  etc..  That  no  agreement,  combination  or  contract 
by  or  between  two  or  more  persons  to  do  or  procure  to  be  done,  or  not 
to  do  or  procure  not  to  be  done,  any  act  in  contemplation  or  futher- 
ance  of  any  trade  dispute  between  employers  and  employees  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  or  in  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  or 
between  employers  and  employees  who  may  be  engaged  in  trade  or  com- 
merce between  the  several  States,  or  between  any  Territory  and 
another,  or  between  any  Territory  or  Territories  and  any  State  or 
States  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  with  foreign  nations,  between 
the  District  of  Columbia  and  any  State  or  States  or  foreign  nations, 
shall  be  deemed  criminal,  nor  shall  those  engaged  therein  be  indictable 
or  otherwise  punishable  for  the  crime  of  conspiracy,  if  such  act  com- 
mitted by  one  person  would  not  be  punishable  as  a  crime,  nor  shall 
such  agreement,  combination  or  contract  be  considered  as  in  restraint 
of  trade  or  commerce,  nor  shall  any  restraining  order  or  injunction 
be  issued  with  relation  thereto.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  exempt 
from  punishment,  otherwise  than  as  herein  excepted,  any  persons 
guilty  of  conspiracy  for  which  punishment  is  now  provided  by  any  act 
of  Congress,  but  such  act  of  Congress  shall,  as  to  the  agreements, 
combinations  and  contracts  hereinbefore  referred  to,  be  construed  as 
if  this  act  were  therein  contained. 

"Mr.  Ray,  of  New  York.  Mr.  Speaker,  if  there  is  no  comment 
desired,  I  move  the  previous  question. 

"The  Speaker.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  moves  the  previous 
question. 

"The  previous  question  was  ordered;  and  under  the  operation 
thereof  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading;  and 
being  engrossed,  it  was  accordingly  read  the  third  time  and  passed. 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Ray,  of  New  York,  a  motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  the  bill  was  passed  was  laid  on  the  table."  (Cong. 
Record,  vol.  35,  p.  4995.) 

When  the  bill  reached  the  Senate  it  was  referred  to  the 
Judiciary  Committee  of  that  body  which  was  at  that  time  com- 
posed of  Senators  Hoar,  Piatt,  of  Connecticut,  Clark,  of  Wyoming, 
Fairbanks,  Simon,  Nelson,  McComas  and  Depew  (Republicans), 
and  Bacon,  Pettus,  Turner,  Culberson  and  Blackburn  (Democrats). 
On  May  23,  1902,  Senator  Hoar  submitted  for  that  committee  a 
favorable  report  on  the  Grosvenor  bill  (H.  R.  11060.)  (See 
Senate  Report  1650,  Fifty-seventh  Congress,  first  session.) 

Nothing  was  done  with  the  bill  until  June  25,  1902,  when  its 
consideration  was  objected  to  by  Senator  Kean  (Republican),  of 
New  Jersey,  and  it  was  postponed  indefinitely.  (See  Cong. 
Record,  p.  7380.) 

Only  by  imputing  the  vilest  treachery  to  those  who  voted  for 
it  in  the  House,  can  it  be  assumed  that  they  knew  in  advance 
that  it  would  be  defeated  in  the  Senate,  and  passed  it  merely  to 
deceive  the  labor  unions. 

In  the  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  it  was  again  introduced  by  Mr. 
Grosvenor,  but  it  was  pigeon-holed  by  the  Judiciary  Committee 
of  the  House.     (See  H.  R.  6782.) 


DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR.        183 

In  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress  the  same  bill  was  introduced  by 
Mr.  Little,  of  Arkansas.  (See  H.  R.  4445.)  Samuel  Gompers,  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  Andrew  Furuseth,  represent- 
ing the  Seamen's  Union,  and  other  representatives  of  organized 
labor,  appeared  in  advocacy  of  the  bill. 

The  administration  antagonized  this  bill  and  favored  a  bill 
said  to  have  been  prepared  by  the  Attorney-General  with  the 
President's  approval.  This  bill  is  known  as  the  Gilbert  bill — 
H.  R.  9328— which  is  as  follows: 

"(H.  R.  9328,  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  first  session.) 
A  bill  to  regulate   the  granting  of  restraining  orders  in  certain 
cases. 

"BE  IT  ENACTED  BY  THE  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF  REPRE- 
SENTATIVES OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  IN 
CONGRESS  ASSEMBLED,  That  in  cases  involving  or  growing  out 
of  labor  disputes  neither  an  injunction  nor  a  temporary  restraining 
order  shall  be  granted  except  upon  due  notice  to  the  opposite  party 
by  the  court  in  term,  or  by  a  judge  thereof  in  vacation,  after  hearing, 
wliicli  may  be  ex  parte  if  the  adverse  party  does  not  appear  at  the 
time  and  place  ordered:  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained 
shall  be  held  to  authorize  the  issuing  of  a  restraining  order  or  an 
injunction  in  any  case  in  which  the  same  is  not  authorized  by  existing 
law." 

One  labor  representative,  Mr.  Fuller,  advocated  the  administra- 
tion bill,  but  expressed  his  willingness  to  have  the  bill — H.  R. 
4445 — reported  favorably  by  the  committee.  He  did  not  oppose 
the  latter  bill,  but  thought  it  better  to  take  one  which  had  the 
backing  of  the  administration,  because  such  a  bill  would  be  most 
likely  to  receive  respectful  consideration  from  a  Republican 
Congress. 

Another  bill  (H.  R.  18171)  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Pearre 
(Republican)  embodying  some  extremely  radical  provisions. 

After  several  hearings,  in  which  various  interests  took  part, 
the  whole  matter  was  postponed  until  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress and  those  labor  representatives,  like  Gompers,  who  advo- 
cated a  measure  which  had  already  passed  the  House  unanimously 
and  had  been  endorsed  by  all  the  labor  unions  of  the  country,  are 
aggrieved. 

The  action  of  Congress  on  January  26,  in  passing  the  bill  abro- 
gating the  eight-hour  law,  the  alien  contract  labor  law  and  the 
Chinese  exclusion  act  as  to  labor  employed  in  the  construction  of 
the  Panama  Canal,  was  in  defiance  of  the  labor  unions  of  the 
country.  The  resolution  and  vote  on  that  subject  will  be  found 
under  the  head  of  yea-and-nay  votes  in  the  House,  elsewhere  in 
this  volume. 

The  following  document  discloses  the  attitude  of  organized 
labor  towards  those  persons  whom  Mr.  Roosevelt  in  his  letter  to 
Representative  Watson,  describes  as  the  men  "responsible  for  the 
handling  of  the  present  Congress:" 


18^4        DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 


LABOR'S  GRIEVANCES. 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  21,  1906. 
Hon.  Theodore  Roosevelt, 

President  of  the  United  States; 
Hon.  Wm.  P.  Frye, 

President  pro  tempore  United  States  Senate; 
Hon.  Joseph  G.  Cannon, 

Speaker  House  of  Representatives,  United  States. 

Gentlemen:  The  undersigned  executive  council  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  and  those  accompanying  us  in  the  presentation 
of  tliis  document,  submit  to  you  the  subject-matter  of  the  grievances 
wliich  the  workmen  of  our  country  feel  by  reason  of  the  indifferent 
position  which  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  manifested 
toward  the  just,  reasonable,  and  necessary  measures  which  liave  been 
before  it  these  past  several  years,  and  which  particularly  affect  the 
interests  of  the  working  people,  as  well  as  by  reason  of  the  adminis- 
trative acts  of  the  executive  branches  of  this  Government  and  the 
legislation  of  the  Congress  relating  to  these  interests.  For  con- 
venience, the  matters  of  which  we  complain  are  briefly  stated,  and 
are  as  follows: 

The  law  commonly  known  as  the  "eight-hour  law"  has  been  found 
ineffective  and  insufficient  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  its  designers 
and  framers.  Labor  has,  since  1894,  urged  the  passage  of  a  law  so  as 
to  remedy  the  defects,  and  for  its  extension  to  all  work  done  for  or  on 
belialf  of  the  Government.     Our  efforts  nave  been  in  vain. 

Without  hearing  of  any  kind  granted  to  those  who  are  the  advocates 
of  the  eight-hour  law  and  principle,  Congress  passed,  and  the  Presi- 
dent signed,  an  appropriation  bill  containing  a  rider  nullifying  the 
eight-hour  law  and  principle  in  its  application  to  the  greatest  public 
work  ever  undertaken  by  our  Government,  the  construction  of  the 
Panama  Canal. 

The  eight-hour  law  in  terms  provides  that  those  intrusted  with  the 
supervision  of  Government  work  shall  neither  require  nor  permit  any 
violations  thereof.  The  law  has  been  grievously  and  frequently 
violated.  The  violations  have  been  reported  to  the  heads  of  several 
Departments,  who  have  refused  to  take  the  necessary  steps  for  its 
enforcement. 

While  recognizing  the  necessity  for  the  employment  of  inmates  of 
our  penal  institutions,  so  that  they  may  be  self-supporting,  labor  has 
urged  in  vain  the  enactment  of  a  law  that  shall  safeguard  it  from  the 
competition  of  the  labor  of  convicts. 

In  the  interest  of  all  of  our  people,  and  in  consonance  with  their 
almost  general  demand,  we  have  urged  Congress  for  some  tangible 
relief  from  the  constantly  growing  evil  of  induced  and  undesirable 
immigration,  but  without  result. 

Recognizing  the  danger  of  Chinese  immigration,  and  responsive  to 
the  demands  of  the  people,  Congress  years  ago  enacted  an  'effective 
Chinese-exclusion  law;  yet;  despite  the  experience  of  the  people  of  our 
own  country,  as  well  as  those  of  other  countries,  the  present  law  is 
flagrantly  violated,  and  now  by  act  of  Congress  it  is  seriously  proposed 
to  invalidate  that  law  and  reverse  the  policy. 

The  partial  relief  secured  by  the  laws  of  1895  and  1898,  providing 
that  seamen  shall  not  be  compelled  to  endure  involuntary  servitude, 
has  been  seriously  threatened  at  each  succeeding  Congress.  The 
petitions  to  secure  for  the  seamen  equal  right  with  all  others  have 
been  denied,  and  a  disposition  shown  to  extend  to  other  workmen  the 
system  of  compulsory  labor. 

,  Under  the  guise  of  a  bill  to  subsidize  the  shipping  industry,  a  pro- 
vision is  incorporated,  and  has  already  passed  the  Senate,  providing 
for  a  term  of  conscription,  which  would  make  compulsory  naval 
service  a  condition  precedent  to  employment  on  privately  owned 
vessels. 

Having  in  mind  the  terrible  and  unnecessary  loss  of  life  attending 
the  burning  of  the  Slocum  in  the  harbor  of  New  York,  the  wreck  of 


D^EMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR.        185 

the  Rio  de  Janeiro  at  the  entrance  to  the  bay  of  San  Francisco,  and 
other  disasters  on  the  waters  too  numerous  to  mention,  in  nearly  every 
case  the  great  loss  of  life  was  due  to  the  undermanning  and  the 
unskilled  manning  of  such  vessels,  we  presented  to  Congress  measures 
tliat  would,  if  enacted,  so  far  as  human  law  could  do,  make  impossible 
the  awful  loss  of  life.  We  have  sought  this  remedy  more  in  the 
interests  of  the  traveling  public  than  in  that  of  the  seamen,  but  in 
vain. 

Having  in  mind  the  constantly  increasing  evil  growing  out  of  the 
parsimony  of  corporations,  of  towing  several  undermanned  and  un- 
equipped vessels  called  "barges"  on  the  high  seas,  where,  in  case  of 
storm  or  stress,  they  are  cut  loose  to  drift  or  sink  and  their  crews  to 
perish,  we  have  urged  the  passage  of  a  law  that  shall  forbid  the 
towing  of  more  than  one  such  vessel  unless  they  shall  have  an  equip- 
ment and  a  crew  sufficient  to  manage  them  when  cut  loose  and  sent 
adrift,  but  in  vain. 

The  antitrust  and  interstate  commerce  laws  enacted  to  protect  the 
people  against  monopoly  in  the  products  of  labor  and  against  dis- 
crimination in  the  transportation  thereof,  have  been  perverted,  so  far 
as  the  laborers  are  concerned,  so  as  to  invadte  and  violate  their  personal 
liberty  as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  Our  repeated  efforts  to 
obtain  redress  from  Congress  have  been  in  vain. 

The  beneficent  writ  of  injunction,  intended  to  protect  property 
rights  has,  as  used  in  labor  disputes,  been  perverted  so  as  to  attack 
and  destroy  personal  freedom  and  in  a  manner  to  hold  that  the 
employer  has  some  property  rights  in  the  labor  of  the  workman. 
Instead  of  obtaining  the  relief  which  labor  has  sought,  it  is  seriously 
threatened  with  statutory  a'uthority  for  existing  judicial  usurpation. 

The  Committee  on  Labor  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was 
instituted  at  the  demand  of  labor  to  voice  its  sentiments,  to  advocate 
its  rights,  and  to  protect  its  interests.  In  the  past  two  Congresses 
this  committee  has  been  so  organized  as  to  make  ineffectual  any 
9,ttempt  labor  has  made  for  redress.  This  being  the  fact  in  the  last 
Congress,  labor  requested  the  Speaker  to  appoint  on  the  Committee 
on  Labor  members  who,  from  their  experience,  knowledge,  and 
sympathy,  would  render  in  this  Congress  such  service,  as  the  com- 
mittee was  originally  designed  to  perform.  Not  only  was  labor's 
request  ignored,  but  the  hostile  make-up  of  the  committee  was 
accentuated. 

Recently  the  President  issued  an  order  forbidding  any  and  all 
Government  employees,  upon  the  pain  of  instant  dismissal  from  the 
Government  service,  to  petition  Congress  for  any  redress  of  grievances 
or  for  any  improvement  in  their  condition.  Thus  the  constitutional 
right  of  citizens  to  petition  must  be  surrendered  by  the  Government 
employee  in  order  that  he  may  obtain  or  retain  his  employment. 

We  present  these  grievances  to  your  attention  because  we  have 
long,  patiently,  and  in  vain  waited  for  redress.  There  is  not  any 
matter  of  which  we  have  complained  but  for  which  we  have  in  an 
honorable  and  lawful  manner  submitted  remedies.  The  remedies  for 
these  grievances  proposed  by  labor  are  in  line  with  fundamental  law, 
and  with  the  progi-ess  and  development  made  necessary  by  changed 
industrial  conditions. 

Labor  brings  these,  its  grievances,  to  your  attention  because  you 
are  the  representatives  responsible  for  legislation  and  for  failure 
of  legislation.  The  toilers  come  to  you  as  your  fellow-citizens  who, 
by  reason  of  their  position  in  life,  have  not  only  with  all  other 
citizens  an  equal  interest  in  our  country,  but  tlie  further  interest 
of  being  the  burden-bearers,  the  wage-earners  of  America.  As  labor's 
representatives  we  ask  you  to  redress  these  grievances,  for  it  is  in 
your  power  so  to  do. 


1§6        MMOCRAf^  kECOamZE  OMAmZ^  LABOR . 

Labor  now  appeals  to  you,  and  we  trust  that  it  may  not  be  in  vain. 
But  if  perchance  you  may  not  heed  us,  we  shall  appeal  to  the  con- 
eeience  and  the  support  of  our  fellow-citizens. 
Very  respectfully, 

Samuel  Gompers,  James  Duncan,  James  O'Connell,  Max 
Morris,  D.  A.  Hayes,  Daniel  J.  Keefe,  Wm.  D. 
Huber,  Joseph  F.  Valentine,  John  B.  Lennon,  Frank 
Morrison,  executive  council,  American  Federation 
of  Labor.— (Cong.  Record,  July  16, vol. 40,  p.  10172.) 

See  further  on  this  subject  the  extracts  from  the  messages, 
addresses  and  historical  writings  of  Theodore  Roosevelt  relating 
to  small  farmers,  mechanics  and  laborers,  and  the  report  of 
Attorney-General  Moody  in  prosecutions  under  the  anti-trust  laws, 
elsewhere  in  this  volume. 

MR.  ROOSEVELT  ON  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 

He  regards  representatives  of  labor  unions  as  members  of  the 
"rogue's  gallery,"  "sleek,  oily  fellows,"  "bulls  of  Bashan,"  "lazy, 
selfish,  brutal,  envious,  violent,  murderous,"  "a  mob." 

Mr.  Roosevelt  has  recently  issued  an  executive  order  requiring 
the  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  law,  which  has  heretofore, 
under  his  administration,  been  a  dead  letter.  The  result  of  the 
elections  in  Maine  this  year  and  the  hostile  attitude  of  organized 
labor  in  other.  States  toward  its  enemies  in  Congress  has  driven 
him  against  his  will  to  perform  a  plain  statutory  obligation. 
Organized  labor  so  understands  it,  and  the  public  so  understand  it. 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  hostility  to  the  labor  element  is  no  secret.  He 
has  expressed  it  in  his  books,  in  his  official  utterances  and  by  his 
acts. 

In  his  book  entitled  "Ranch  Life  and  Hunting  Trail,"  comparing 
the  Western  cowboys  with  other  classes  of  citizens,  Mr.  Roosevelt 
says: 

"They  are  much  better  fellows  and  pleasanter  companions  than 
small  farmers  or  agricultural  laborers;  nor  are  the  mechanics  and 
laborers  and  workmen  of  a  great  city  to  be  mentioned  in  the  same 
breath."      (Ranch  Life  and  Hunting  Trial,  pp.  9  and  10.) 

In  "American  Ideals,"  referring  to  a  delegation  of  labor  men 
who  appeared  before  a  committee  of  the  New  York  Legislature, 
he  describes  them  in  his  "American  Ideals,"  vol.  1,  p.  105,  as  "the 
rogue's  gallery."  One  of  the  labor  men  who  spoke  he  descril^es 
as  a  "sleek,  oily  little  fellow,  with  a  black  moustache,  who  had 
never  done  a  stroke  of  work  in  his  life,"  and  another  as  "a  fellow- 
professional  of  another  type — a  great,  burly  man  who  would  speak 
of  the  Wrongs  (with  a  capital  W)  of  Labor  (with  a  capital  L) 
and  bellow  as  if  he  had  been  a  'bull  of  Bashan.'  " 

Again  he^ays: 

"The  men  who  object  to  what  they  style  'government  by  injunction' 
are,  as  regards  the  essential  principles  of  government,  in  hearty 
sympathy  with  their  remote  skin-clad  ancestors  who  lived  in  caves, 
fought  one  another  with  stone-headed  axes,  and  ate  the  mammoth 
wooly  rhinoceros. 


I 


DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR.        187 


"They  are  interesting  as  representing  a  geological  survival,  but 
they  are  dangerous  whenever  there  is  the  least  chance  of  their  making 
the  principles  of  this  ages-buried  past  living  factors  in  our  present 
life. 

"They  are  not  in  sympathy  with  men  of  good  minds  and  sound 
civic  morality."      (Roosevelt's  American  Ideals,  Vol.  2,  p.  18.) 

The  following  expressions  are  taken  from  his  annual  message 
of  December  5,  1905,  in  which  he  dwelt  at  great  length  upon  the 
relations  of  labor  and  capital: 

"There  has  been  a  demand  for  depriving  courts  of  the  power  to  issue 
injunctions  in  labor  disputes.  Such  special  limitation  of  the  equity 
powers  of  our  courts  would  be  most  unwise."     .     .     . 

"We  can  get  justice  and  right  dealing  only  if  we  put  as  of  para- 
mount importance  the  principle  of  treating  a  man  on  his  worth  as  a 
man  rather  than  with  reference  to  his  social  position,  his  occupation, 
or  the  class  to  which  he  belongs.  There  are  selfish  and  brutal  men 
in  all  ranks  of  life.     .     .     . 

"If  they  are  laborers,  their  selfishness  and  brutality  may  take  the 
form  of  laziness,  of  sullen  envy  of  the  more  fortunate,  and  of  willing- 
ness to  perform  deeds  of  murderous  violence  .  .  ,.  .  and  all 
honest  and  far-seeing  men  should  join  in  warring  against  it,  when- 
ever it  becomes  manifest."     .     .     . 

"The  downfall  of  republics  has  been  due  to  the  class  spirit,  the 
growth  of  the  spirit  which  tends  to  make  a  man  subordinate  the 
welfare  of  the  public,  as  a  whole,  to  the  welfare* of  the  particular  class 
to  which  he  belongs,  the  substitution  of  loyalty  to  a  class  for  loyalty 
to  the  nation.     .     .     . 

"  .  .  .  .  This  government  is  not,  and  never  shall  be,  a  govern- 
ment by  a  mob." 

The  views  of  the  members  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
on  these  points  will  be  found  in  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Andrew 
Furuseth  and  Mr.  Samuel  Gompers,  reported  in  the  hearing  before 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Fifty-ninth  Con- 
gress, first  session,  in  relation  to  anti-injunction  and  restraining 
orders.  These  views  are  reasonable  and  just.  Mr.  Gompers,  the 
president  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  having  in  mind 
the  remarks  of  the  President,  said: 

"You  will  observe  that  the  enjoining  of  men  from  committing  any 
criminal  act,  we  contend,  is  an  improper  exercise  of  the  power  of  the 
equity  court;  yet  some  of  our  opponents  would  have  it  appear  that 
we  favor  criminal  acts,  or  that  we  favor  their  commission. 

"But  we  contend  that  the  writ  of  injunction  was  never  intended  to 
be  issued  to  enjoin  men  from  committing  any  lawful  or  criminal 
act;  that  both  our  country  and  our  States  provide  for  the  appre- 
hension and  the  trial  by  a  jury  of  persons  who  commit  such  acts  to 
ascertain  whether  such  person  has  been  guilty  of  a  criminal  act  and 
to  punish  him  if  he  is  found  guilty,  and  that  organized  civil  society 
has  constituted  a  police  force,  large  or  small,  as  the  circumstances 
may  warrant,  for  the  apprehension  and  prevention  of  any  criminal 
act,  and  that  it  is  hardly  fair  to  put  it  as  has  been  stated  by  the 
opponents  of  our  injunction  bill,  which  your  committee  reported 
favorably.  But  the  essence  of  the  opposition  and  the  purpose  of  the 
opposition,  is  clearly  manifest.     It  is  to  avoid  the  jury  trial." 

Mr.  Roosevelt  has  often  expressed  his  contempt  for  "popular 
clamor,"  which  is  the  name  by  which  he  calls  public  sentiment. 
The  only  instance  on  record  in  which  he  ever  confessed  that  he 
could  possibly  make  a  mistake  was  one  in  which  he  "w§?ikly^ 


188        DEMOCRATS  RECOGNIZE  ORGANIZED  LABOR. 

yielded  to  the  popular  voice  of  New  York."  An  account  of  the 
affair  is  found  in  Will  M.  Clemens'  work,  "Roosevelt,  the  Ameri- 
can," at  page  37: 

Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  session  (of  the  New  York  Legisla- 
ture) in  1883,  Mr.  Roosevelt  introduced  a  bill  requiring  the  New 
York  elevated  railroad  companies  to  reduce  their  fares  from  ten  to 
five  cents.  Roosevelt  voted  for  this  bill;  but  soon  afterwards  on 
reconsideration  defeated  it,  and,  according  to  Mr.  Clemens'  account 
(pp.  38  and  39),  said  in  his  speech: 

"  *I  have  to  say  with  shame  that  when  I  voted  for  this  bill  I  did 
not  act  as  I  think  I  ought  to  have  acted  and  as  I  have  generally 
acted  on  the  floor  of  this  House.  For  the  only  time  I  voted  here 
contrary  to  what  I  think  to  be  honestly  right  I  did  at  that  time.  I 
have  to  confess  that  I  wealcly  yielded  partly  to  a  vindictive  feeling 
to  the  infernal  thieves  who  have  that  railroad  in  charge,  and  partly 
to  the  popular  voice  of  New  York." 

But  while  Mr.  Roosevelt  confesses  with  shame  that  he  once, 
though  only  once,  yielded  to  the  popular  voice  and  opposed  the 
New  York  railroad  ring,  he  has  never  confessed  that  he  had  any 
sympathy  with  the  aspirations  of  organized  labor.  The  working- 
men  have  discovered  this  and  have  resented  in  words  on  several 
occasions. 

In  1903,  the  Central  Labor  Union  of  Washington,  D.  C,  passed 
a  resolution  in  relation  to  the  case  of  W.  A.  Miller,  who  had  been 
expelled  from  the  Bookbinders'  Union  and  removed  from  the 
Government  Printing  Office,  but  had  been  reinstated  in  the  office 
by  the  President  in  contempt  of  the  adverse  petitions  of  organized 
labor,  in  which  resolution  the  Central  Labor  Union  said: 

"Whereas,  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  seen  fit  to  rein- 
state W.  A.  Miller,  and  has  also  committed  himself  to  the  policy  of 
the  open  shop,  tlie  order  of  the  President  cannot  be  regarded  in  any 
but  an  unfriendly  light."      (Leupp's  Roosevelt,  p.  239.) 

Commenting  on  this  case,  Mr.  Roosevelt  said:  "Of  course,  I  will 
not  for  one  moment  submit  to  dictation  by  the  labor  unions"  .  .  . 
"If  these  labor  union  men  strike,  not  one  of  them  will  do  another 
stroke  of  Government  work  while  I  am  President."  (Leupp's 
Roosevelt,  p.  241.) 

After  quoting  these  words,  Mr.  Leupp  adds:  "The  same  spirit 
was  shown  in  the  case  of  the  Arizona  Mining  strike  riots  in  1903, 
when  the  Governor  notified  the  President  of  the  inability  of  the  civil 
authorities  to  control  the  mob.  Within  thirty  minutes  of  the  receipt 
of  this  telegram  a  detachment  of  United  States  troops  was  on  its 
way  to  the  scene  of  disorder."      (Leupp's  Roosevelt,  p.  241.) 

The  position  of  the  Democratic  party  has  been  the  reverse  of 
Mr.  Roosevelt's,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  our  chapter  on  the 
Democracy  and  labor. 


ROOSEVELT  A  FREE-TRADER.  189 


ROOSEVELT  A  FREE-TRADER,  A  TARIFF  REFORMER 
AND  A  STAND-PATTER— WAS  A  FREE-TRADER 
FROM  1881  TO  1885— WAS  A  TARIFF  REFORMER 
IN  1904— IS  A  STAND-PATTER  IN  1906— MAY 
LEAD  "A  MOVEMENT  FOR  TARIFF  REVISION"  IN 
1908. 

The  position  of  President  Roosevelt  on  the  tariff  question  is  one 
of  prime  importance  at  this  juncture.  What  that  position  has 
been;  what  it  is,  and  what  it  will  be  hereafter — are  matters  which 
concern  everybody. 

Theoretically,  at  least,  Mr.  Roosevelt  has  been  a  free-trader, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  has  undergone  any  change  in 
principle.  But,  in  deference  to  the  doctrine  of  expediency,  the 
doctrine  that  the  end  justifies  the  means,  the  doctrine  that  party 
fealty  is  superior  to  political  principles,  the  President  has  submit- 
ted to  the  dictation  of  the  older  leaders  of  his  party,  and  is  at  this 
time  upholding  the  stalwart  protectionists.  He  has  accepted  for 
this  campaign,  only,  the  "stand-pat"  position.  His  friends  give  it, 
however,  that  he  is  not  sincere;  and  that,  in  1908,  he  will  be  along- 
side of  Governor  Cummins  and  Mr.  Foss  advocating  tariff  re- 
vision. 

No  better  analysis  of  the  President's  views  on  this  subject  can 
be  found  than  that  which  has  been  given  by  Mr.  Leupp,  the  pres- 
ent Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  who  is  known  to  be  one  of  the 
closest  personal  and  political  friends  of  the  President.  In  1904, 
Mr.  Leupp  wrote  a  book  entitled  "The  Man  Roosevelt,"  in  which 
at  p.  257  he  says: 

"In  or  about  the  year  1881,  Mr.  Roosevelt  became  a  member  of 
the  Free  Trade  Club  in  New  York.  He  found  there  congenial  associa- 
tions, the  club  consisting  largely  of  educated  young  men  like  himself, 
full  of  public  spirit  and  ambition  for  a  share  in  the  world's  activities. 
He  remained  a  member  through  his  entire  legislative  career." 

"But  in  1885,  after  he  had  left  the  legislature,  Mr.  Roosevelt  with- 
drew from  the  Free  Trade  Club,  saying  that  he  was  'a  Republican 
first  and  free-trader  afterwards,'  (Leupp's  Roosevelt,  p.  259),  though 
in  fact  he  had  been  a  free-trader  first."     *     *     * 

Mr.  Leupp  adds: 

"He  still  remains,  however,  a  tariff  reformer  within  Republican  lines 
*  *  *  I  do  not  believe  that  he  would  condemn  as  a  heresy  the 
honest  belief  of  a  Republican  that  the  party  would  be  better  without 
the  protection  clause  in  its  creed.  I  do  not  think  he  would  resent  a 
Republican  proposal  to  supplant  a  prohibitory  tariff  with  a  tariff  for 
revenue  in  which  the  protective  element  shall  he  incidental  only." 
(Leupp's  Roosevelt,  p.  259.) 

Finally,  Mr.  Leupp  summarizes  his  review  of  Roosevelt's  posi- 
tion on  the  tariff  in  the  following  question: 

"Is  he  not  committed  to  a  non-political,  conservative  and  well-con- 
sidered  undertaking,  in  which  no  special  interests  shall  be  favored 
at  the  expense  of  the  rest,  and  none  persecuted  because  they  wear  an 
obnoxious  title,  but  in  which  the  whole  system  shall  be  treated  as  if 
the  schedules  were  made  for  the  people,  not  the  people  for  the 


150  ROOSEVELT  A  FREETRADER. 


schedules  ?"  And  again :  "Does  it  seem  unreasonable  to  assume  that 
when  the  disturbance  of  the  elections  of  1904  has  subsided,  we  shall 
see  him  leading  a  movement  for  tariflf  revision?"  (Leupp's  Roosevelt, 
p.  263.) 

Mr.  Roosevelt  placed  the  stamp  of  his  unqualified  approval  on 
these  utterances  by  appointing  their  author  to  an  office  of  great 
dignity  and  profit.  He  has  never  repudiated  them;  and  whoever 
proclaims  himself  a  follower  of  Roosevelt  proclaims  himself  a 
free-trader  in  principle,  a  tariff  revisionist  in  the  past  and  for  the 
future,  and  a  stand-patter  at  present  for  what  is  in  it. 

The  President  has  probably  read  what  the  Hon.  John  Sherman 
said  on  the  subject — Free  Trade: 

Every  advance  toward  the  free  exchange  of  commodities  is  an 
advance  in  civilization;  every  obstruction  to  a  free  exchange  is  born 
of  the  same  narrow,  despotic  spirit  which  planted  castles  upon  the 
Rhine  to  plunder  peaceful  commerce;  every  obstruction  to  commerce 
is  a  tax  upon  consumption;  every  facility  to  a  free  exchange  cheapens 
commodities,  increases  trade  and  population,  and  promotes  civilization. 

Mr.  Sherman,  in  1867,  when  our  customs  revenue  was  nearly 
$177,000,000  and  our  imports  about  $379,000,000,  said: 

"It  is  therefore  simply  absurd  to  talk  about  free  trade,  and  to  talk 
about  a  protective  tariff  is  unnecessary,  because  the  wit  of  man  could 
not  possibly  frame  a  tariff  that  would  produce  $140,000,000  in  gold 
without  protecting  our  domestic  industries." 

In  1883,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  a  protection  Democrat,  but  not  a 
stand-patter,  said: 

"In  my  judgment  the  question  of  free  trade  will  not  arise  practically 
in  this  country  during  our  lives,  if  ever,  so  long  as  we  have  to  raise 
revenues  by  duties  on  imports;  and  therefore  the  discussion  of  that 
principle  is  an  absolute  waste  of  time.  After  our  public  debt  is  paid 
in  full,  our  expenditures  can  hardly  be  much  below  $200,000,000,  and 
if  this  is  levied  in  a  business-like  way  and  in  an  intelligent  manner 
it  will  afford  adequate  protection  to  our  industrial  interests  in  the 
United  States." 

But  the  Democratic  party  is  not  contending  and  never  has 
contended  for  free  trade.  The  Democrats  demand  a  revenue- 
only  tariff  and  not  an  "exclusion"  or  stand-pat  tariff. 

Secretary  Shaw,  in  his  last  report,  stated  this: 

"The  revenues  of  the  Government  from  all  sources  (by  warrant) 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1905,  were : 

"From  ^customs,'  $261,798,856.91,  and  our  total  'receipts*  from  all 
sources  last  year  were  $697,101,269.95." 

He  also  said  that  our  "outstanding  principal  of  the  public  debt, 
June  30,  1905,  was  $2,274,615,063.84"  and  that  our  "expenditures" 
during  the  fiscal  year  were  "$720,105,498.55,"  showing  "a  deficit 
of  $23,204,228.60." 

Senator  Allison,  in  1870,  after  stating  our  obligations  to  be  "an- 
nual interest,  $125,000,000;  sinking  fund  required,  $25,000,000," 
said: 

"§9  that  good  faith  requires  at  least  $150,000,000  from  imports," 


R608EVJSLT  A  mEE-fitADER.  Idl 


At  the  same  time  he  demanded  tariff  reduction,  amongst  other 
things  saying: 

"Tlie  practical  question  is,  how  shall  these  duties  be  proportioned 
among  the  various  articles  imported  so  as  to  take  out  of  the  pockets 
of  the  people  the  least  possible  sum  over  and  above  the  actual  amount 
placed  in  the  Treasury,  meanwhile  discriminating  in  favor  of  articles 
of  necessary  consumption,  and  against  articles  of  voluntary  consump- 
tion, commonly  denominated  luxuries? 

"Impost  duties  thus  levied,  with  an  annual  importation  of  about 
$450,000,000  in  value,  will  certainly  require  an  average  rate  of  duty 
SUFFICIENT  TO  GIVE  OUR  PRODUCERS  OF  MANUFACTURED 
PRODUCTS  GREATLY  THE  ADVANTAGE  OVER  THE  MANUFAC- 
TURERS OF  SIMILAR  PRODUCTS  IN  FOREIGN  COUNTRIES." 

Surely  by  the  standard  of  these  several  high  authorities,  there 
is  no  room  for  the  "exclusions,"  as  Governor  Cummins  calls  the 
stand-patters,  but  there  is  plenty  of  room  for  tariff  reform  along 
a  revenue-only  basis. 

The  Republicans,  in  effect,  admit  the  tariff  should  be  reformed. 
But,  says  Mr.  Secretary  Shaw,  we  must  refix  the  tariff  after  a  gen- 
eral election  and  have  a  special  session  called  for  that  purpose.  If 
this  is  not  placing  party  above  tariff  reform  and  above  and  be- 
yond a  tax-ridden,  tax-cursed,  trust-oppressed  people,  what  is  it? 
But  the  Republican  party  has  never  been  a  party  of  the  people. 

When  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  a  free-trader,  and  before  he  had 
decided  to  be  a  Republican  and  a  free-trader  at  once,  he  said : 

"Political  economists  have,  pretty  generally  agreed  that  protection 
is  vicious  in  theory  and  harmful  in  practice;  but  if  the  majority  of 
the  people  in  interest  wish  it,  and  it  affects  only  themselves,  there  is 
no  earthly  reason  why  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  try  the  experi- 
ment to  their  heart's  content.  The  trouble  is  that  it  rarely  does 
affect  only  themselves;  and  in  1828  the  evil  was  peculiarly  aggravated 
on  account  of  the  unequal  way  in  which  the  proposed  law  would  affect 
different  sections.  It  purported  to  benefit  the  rest  of  the  country, 
but  it  undoubtedly  worked  real  injury  to  the  planter  States  and  there 
is  small  ground  for  wonder  that  the  irritation  over  it  should  liave 
been  intense."      (Roosevelt's  "Life  of  Benton,"  p.  67.) 

"In  1828,  the  tariff,  whether  it  benefited  the  country  as  a  whole 
or  not,  unquestionably  harmed  the  South;  and  in  a  Federal  Union  it 
is  most  unwise  to  pass  laws  which  shall  benefit  one  part  of  the 
country  to  the  hurt  of  another  part,  when  the  latter  receives  no  com- 
pensation. The  truculent  and  unyielding  attitude  of  the  extreme 
protectionists  was  irritating  in  the  extreme;  for  cooler  men  than  the 
South  Carolinians  might  well  have  been  exasperated  at  such  an  utter- 
ance as  that  of  Henry  Clay,  when  he  stated  that  for  the  sake  of 
the  American  system — by  which  title  he  was  fond  of  styling  a 
doctrine  already  ancient  in  medieval  times — he  would  'defy  the  South, 
the  President,  and  the  devil.'"  (Roosevelt's  "Life  of  Benton," 
p.  90.) 

"Clay's  assertions  as  to  what  the  tariff  had  done  for  the  West  were 
ill-founded,  as  Benton  showed  in  a  good  speech,  wherein  he  described 
picturesquely  enough  the  industries  and  general  condition  of  the 
country,  and  asserted  with  truth  that  its  revived  prosperity  was  due 
to  its  -own  resources,  entirely  independent  of  Federal  aid  or  legisla- 
tion. He  said :  'I  do  not  think  we  are  indebted  to  the  high  tariff  for 
our  fertile  lands  and  our  navigable  rivers;  and  I  am  certain  we  are 
indebted  to  these  blessings  for  the  prosperity  we  enjoy.'  "  (Roosevelt's 
"Life  of  Benton,"  p.  91.) 


192  ROOSEVELT  A  FREE-TRADER. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  has  written  nothing  distinctly  and  unequivocally 
stating  his  position  since  he  withdrew  from  the  Free  Trade  Club; 
but  it  has  been  given  out  at  Oyster  Bay  this  summer  that  he  is 
fully  in  accord  with  the  views  of  Speaker  Cannon  and  Mr.  Sher- 
man, which  have  been  summarized  in  the  language  of  gamblers 
and  beggars:    "Stand  pat  and  pass  the  hat." 

SECRETARY  SHAW,  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE 
POWERS  OF  CONGRESS. 

In  1904  when  the  Democrats  in  Congress  were  demanding  that 
the  departmental  scandals,  then  so  well  known  and  widely  preva- 
lent, be  investigated,  Mr.  Secretary  Shaw  used  the  following 
language  in  one  of  his  speeches: 

"IT  WOULD  BE  UNCONSTITUTIONAL  FOR  CONGRESS  TO 
INVESTIGATE  A  GOVERNMENT  DEPARTMENT." 

In  other  words,  any  department  of  the  Government  may  be  run 
as  the  head  of  that  department  may  please.  The  greatest  body, 
the  most  powerful  branch  of  the  Government — Congress — has  no 
right  to  guard  the  people's  interests  in  the  different  branches  of 
the  executive  arm  of  the  republic.  Maladministration  may  be 
widespread,  corruption  oozing  from  every  pore,  scandal  may  be 
rife,  officers  of  the  Government  in  the  pay  of  the  trusts,  in  a 
word,  anything  may  be  done  in  a  department,  and  yet  Congress 
is  powerless  to  intervene.  The  question  naturally  arises,  who 
has  the  power?  Perhaps  Mr.  Shaw  can  answer  this,  or,  forsooth, 
perchance  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  thinks  that  he  is  all 
powerful  and  responsible  to  no  one. 


THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE     BIG  STICK."  193 


THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  "BIG  STICK." 

Expressions  of  opinion  by  the  President  relative  to  corporations, 
conquest,  overlordship  of  weaker  nations  and  ship  subsidy: 

ROOSEVELT  FAVORS  BIG  CORPORATIONS  IN   PORTO  RICO 

AND  THE   PHILIPPINES— WOULD   MAKE   LAWS 

"ADVANTAGEOUS   FOR  THEM." 

In  his  annual  message  of  December  5,  1905,  Mr.  Roosevelt  said: 

"The  fundamental  and  vital  help  must  be  given  through  the  develop- 
ment of  the  industries  of  the  islands,  and  a  most  efficient  means  to 
this  end  is  to  encourage  big  American  corporations  to  start  industries 
in  them  and  this  means  to  make  it  advantageous  for  them  to  do  so. 
To  limit  the  ownership  of  mining  claims  as  has  been  done  in  the 
Philippines  is  absurd.  In  both  the  Philippines  and  Porto  Rico  the 
limit  of  holdings  of  land  should  be  largely  raised." 

Here  we  have  the  real  motive  behind  the  "big  stick"  policy. 
Back  of  all  Mr.  Roosevelt's  glorification  of  expansion  stand  the 
trusts,  the  speculators  and  gamblers,  the  plunderbund.  In  the 
light  of  this  announcement  one  may  easily  guess  the  President's 
meaning  when  he  appeals  to  the  spirit  conquest. 

ROOSEVELT   ON    "THE   SHADOW   OF   OUR    DESTINY"   AND 
"EASY  INTERNATIONAL   MORALITY." 

"The  shadow  of  our  destiny  has  already  reached  the  shores  of  Asia. 
The  might  of  our  people  looms  large  against  the  world  horizon  and 
it  will  loom  ever  larger  as  the  years  go  by."  (From  President 
Roosevelt's  Memorial  Address  at  Arlington,  1902.) 

"The  general  feeling  in  the  West  upon  this  last  subject  afterwards 
crystallized  into  what  became  known  as  the  'Manifest  Destiny'  idea, 
which,  reduced  to  its  simplest  terms,  was:  that  it  was  our  manifest 
destiny  to  swallow  up  the  lands,  of  all  adjoining  nations  who  were 
too  weak  to  withstand  us ;  a  theory  that  forthwith  obtained  immense 
popularity  among  all  statesmen  of  easy  international  morality." 
(Roosevelt's  "Life  of  Benton,"  p.  40.) 

ROOSEVELT   WANTS   BIG    MILITARY   AND   NAVAL    FORCE, 
TO   INCLUDE  SUBSIDIZED  MERCHANT  MARINE. 

In  his  annual  message  of  December  5,  1905,  President  Roose- 
velt said: 

"We  cannot  consider  the  question  of  our  foreign  policy  without  at 
the  same  time  treating  of  the  Army  and  the  Navy.  We  now  have  a 
very  small  army — indeed,  one  well-nigh  infinitesimal  when  compared 
with  the  army  of  any  other  large  nation." 

"Our  Navy  must,  relatively  to  the  navies  of  other  nations,  always 
be  of  greater  size  than  our  army.  We  have  most,  wisely  continued 
for  a  number  of  years  to  build  up  our  Navy." 

"Fast  scouts  are  needed.  The  main  strength  of  the  Navy,  however, 
lies  and  can  only  lie  in  the  great  battle  ships,  the  heavily  armored, 
heavily  gunned  vessels  which  decide  the  mastery  of  the  seas.  Heavy 
armed  cruisers  also  play  a  most  useful  part,  and  unarmed  cruisers, 
if  swift  enough,  are  very  useful  as  scouts." 


194      '       THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  ''BIG  STICK:* 

"To  the  spread  of  our  trade  in  peace  and  the  defense  of  our  flag  in 
war  a  great  and  prosperous  merchant  marine  is  indispensable.  We 
should  have  ships  of  our  own  and  seamen  of  our  own  to  convey  our 
goods  to  neutral  markets,  and  in  case  of  need  to  reenforce  our  battle 
line.  It  cannot  but  be  a  source  of  regret  and  uneasiness  to  us  that 
the  lines  of  communication  with  our  sister  Republics  of  South 
America  should  be  chiefly  under  foreign  control.  It  is  not  a  good 
thing  that  American  merchants  and  manufacturers  should  have  to 
send  their  goods  and  letters  to  South  America  via  Europe  if  they  wish 
security  and  dispatch.  Even  on  the  Pacific,  where  our  ships  have 
held  their  ow^n  better  than  on  the  Atlantic,  our  merchant  flag  is  now 
threatened  through  the  liberal  aid  bestowed  by  other  governments  on 
their  own  steam  lines.  I  ask  your  earnest  consideration  of  the  report 
with  which  the  Merchant  Marine  Commission  has  followed  its  long 
and  careful  inquiry."      (Note. — The  report  favors  a  ship  subsidy.) 

In  his  annual  message  of  December  7,  1903,  President  Roose- 
velt said: 

"Lines  of  cargo  ships  are  of  even  more  importance  than  fast  mail 
lines :  save  so  far  as  the  latter  can  be  depended  upon  to  furnish  smft 
auxiliary  cruisers  in  time  of  war." 

MONROE     DOCTRINE     PRAISED     AND     PERVERTED— WHY 

WE  NEED  A   BIG   NAVY— SANTO   DOMINGO  AND 

VENEZUELA. 

In  Ms  last  annual  message,  December  5, 1905,  the  President  says: 

"One  of  the  most  effective  instruments  of  peace  is  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.     ... 

"It  is  not  of  the  slightest  consequence  whether  we  grant  the  aid 
needed  by  Santo  Domingo  as  an  incident  to  the  wise  development  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  or  because  we  regard  the  case  of  Santo  Domingo 
as  standing  wholly  by  itself,  and  to  be  treated  as  such,  and  not  on 
general  principles  or  with  any  reference  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 
The  important  point  is  to  give  the  needed  aid,  and  the  case  is  certainly 
sufficiently  peculiar  to  deserve  to  be  judged  purely  on  its  own  merits. 
The  conditions  in  Santo  Domingo  have  for  a  number  of  years  growTi 
from  bad  to  worse  until  a  year  ago  all  society  was  on  the  verge  of 
dissolution.  Fortunately,  just  at  this  time  a  ruler  sprang  up  in 
Santo  Domingo,  who,  with  his  colleagues,  saw  the  dangers  threatening 
their  country  and  appealed  to  the  friendship  of  the  only  great  and 
powerful  neighbor  who  possessed  the  power,  and,  as  they  hoped,  also 
the  will  to  help  them.  .  .  .  The  previous  rulers  of  Santo  Domingo 
had  recklessly  incurred  debts,  and  owing  to  her  internal  disorders 
she  had  ceased  to  be  able  to  provide  means  of  paying  the  debts. 

"Accordingly  the  Executive  Department  of  our  Government  nego- 
tiated a  treaty  under  which  we  are  to  try  to  help  the  Dominican 
people  to  straighten  out  their  finances.  This  treaty  is  pending  before 
the  Senate.  In  the  meantime  a  temporary  arrangement  has  been 
made  which  will  last  until  the  Senate  has  had  time  to  take  action 
upon  the  treaty.  Under  this  arrangement  the  Dominican  Govern- 
ment has  appointed  Americans  to  all  the  important  positions  in  the 
customs  service,  and  they  are  seeing  to  the  honest  collection  of  the 
revenues,  turning  over  45  per  cent,  to  the  (Dominican)  Government 
for  running  expenses,  and  putting  the  other  55  per  cent,  into  a  safe 
depositary  for  equitable  division  in  case  the  treaty  be  ratified,  among 
the  various  creditors,  whether  European  or  American." 

In  the  same  message,  he  craftily  strikes  at  Venezuela  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  Asphalt  Trust,  and  perverts  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  as 
follows: 

"If  a  republic  to  the  south  of  us  commits  a  tort  against  a  foreign 
nation  such  as  an  outrage  against  a  citizen  of  that  nation,  then  the 


THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  ''BIG  STICK."  195 

Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  force  us  to  interfere  to  prevent  punishment 
of  the  tort,  save  to  see  that  punishment  does  not  assume  the  form  of 
territorial  occupation  in  any  shape.  The  case  is  more  difficult  when 
it  refers  to  a  contractual  obligation.  Our  own  government  has  always 
refused  to  enforce  such  contractual  obligations  on  behalf  of  its  citizens 
by  am,  appeal  to  arms."     ... 

"We  must  ourselves  undertake  to  bring  about  some  arrangement 
by  which  so  much  as  possible  of  a  just  obligation  shall  be  paid."  .    .    . 

"There  are  of  course  limits  to  the  wrongs  which  any  self-respecting 
nation  can  endure.  It  is  always  possible  that  wrong  actions  toward 
this  nation,  or  toioards  citizens  of  this  nation,  in  some  state  unable 
to  secure  justice  from  outsiders,  and  unwilling  to  do  justice  to  those 
outsiders  who  treat  it  well,  may  result  in  our  having  to  take  action 
to  protect  our  lights." 

There  speaks  the  natural,  unmuzzled  Roosevelt,  who  announced 
in  his  Cuban  letter: 

"If  a  nation  shows  how  to  act  with  decency  in  industrial  and 
political  matters,  if  it  keeps  order  and  pays  its  obligations,  then  it 
need  fear  no  interference  from  the  United  States.  Brutal  wrong- 
doing or  an  impotence  which  results  in  a  general  loosening  of  the  ties 
of  civilized  society  may  finally  require  intervention  by  some  civilized 
nation,  and  in  the  western  hemisphere  the  United  States  cannot  ignore 
this  duty;  but  it  remains  true  that  our  interests  and  those  of  our 
southern  neighbors  are  in  reality  identical.  All  that  we  ask  is  that 
they  shall  govern  themselves  well  and  be  prosperous  and  orderly." 

(Note — See  also  articles  on  Santo  Domingo  and  Venezuela  else- 
where in  this  book.) 


SOME  OF   PRESIDENT   ROOSEVELT'S   INCONSISTENCIES. 
MATTERS  AFFECTING  THE   PRESIDENT. 

He  cites  the  achievements  of  Jefferson,  Monroe  and  Polk  with 
approval  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  but  denounces  those  Presi- 
dents, their  policy  and  their  supporters  in  his  books. 

The  inconsistencies  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  are  many,  but  perhaps  the 
most  glaring  of  them  all  are  found  in  his  references  to  Presidents 
Jefferson,  Monroe  and  Polk. 

In  his  letter  accepting  the  Republican  nomination  for  the  Vice- 
Presidency,  in  1900,  Mr.  Roosevelt  said: 

"In  1803,  under  President  Jefferson,  the  greatest  single  stride  in 
expansion  that  we  ever  undertook  was  taken  by  the  purchase  of  the 
Louisiana  territory.  This  so-called  Louisiana,  which  included  what 
are  now  the  States  of  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Louisiana,  Iowa,  Minnesota, 
Kansas,  Nebraska,  North  and  South  Dakota,  Idaho,  Montana  and  a 
large  part  of  Colorado  and  Utah,  was  acquired  by  treaty  and  purchase 
under  President  Jefferson.     .     .     . 

"The  next  great  step  in  expansion  was  the  acquisition  of  Florida. 
This  was  partly  acquired  by  conquest  and  partlj^  by  purchase,  Andrew 
Jackson  being  the  most  prominent  figure  in  the  acquisition.  It  was 
taken  under  President  Monroe.     .     .     . 

"Our  next  acquisition  of  territory  was  that  of  Texas,  secured  by 
treaty  after  it  had  been  wrested  from  the  Mexicans  by  the  Texans 
themselves.  Then  came  the  acquisition  of  California,  New  Mexico, 
Arizona,  Nevada  and  parts  of  Coloraflo  and  Utah,  as  the  result  of  the 
Mexican  War  supplemented  five  years  later  by  the  Gadsden  purchase," 


196  THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  ''BIG  STICK." 

What  Mr.  Roosevelt  says  in  these  passages  is  entirely  true; 
but  in  his  historical  writings  he  gives  no  credit  to  Jefferson,  Mon- 
roe or  Polk  for  the  acquisitions  of  territory  referred  to.  On  the 
contrary,  he  directly  denies  to  Jefferson  any  credit  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  Louisiana,  and  denounces  Monroe  and  Polk  in  unmeasured 
terms,  thus  inferentially  condemning  them  for  the  part  they 
played  in  our  national  history,  not  only  in  the  acquisition  of 
Florida,  Texas  and  the  Mexican  cession,  but  in  all  things. 

Of  Jefferson  he  says: 

"The  men  who  settled  and  peopled  the  Western  wilderness  were  the 
men  who  won  Louisiana,  for  it  was  surrendered  by  France  merely 
because  it  was  impossible  to  hold  it  against  the  American  advance. 
Jefferson  through  his  agents  at  Paris,  asked  only  for  New  Orleans, 
but  Napoleon  thrust  upon  him  the  great  West."  (Preface  to  Roose- 
velt's "Winning  of  the  West,"  Part  VI,  dated  May,  1896.) 

Of  Monroe  he  says: 

"Monroe  was  an  honorable  man,  with  a  very  unoriginal  mind,  and 
he  simply  reflected  the  wild,  foolish  views'  held  by  his  fellows  of  the 
Jeffersonian  Democratic-Republican  school."  (Roosevelt's  "Life  of 
G.  Morris,"  pp.  301  and  302.) 

"I  think  he  (James  Monroe)  was  as  much  a  failure  as  his  prede- 
cessors, and  a  rasher  criticism  could  not  be  passed  upon  him." 
(Roosevelt's  "Naval  War  of  1812,"  p.  456.) 

Of  Polk  he  says: 

"Polk  was  backed  by  rabid  Southern  fire-eaters  and  slavery  exten- 
sionists,  ...  by  the  almost  solid  foreign  vote,  still  unfit  for  the 
duties  of  American  citizenship,  by  the  vicious  and  criminal  classes  in 
all  the  great  cities  of  the  North  and  in  New  Orleans,  by  the  corrupt 
politicians,  .  .  .  and  lastly,  he  was  also  backed,  indirectly  but 
most  powerfully,  by  the  political  abolitionists."  (Roosevelt's  "Life 
of  Benton,"  p.  291).  "The  Abolitionists  joined  hands  with  Northern 
roughs  and  Southern  slavocrats  to  elect  the  man  who  was,  excepting 
Tyler,  the  very  smallest  of  the  line  of  small  Presidents  who  came 
between  Jackson  and  Lincoln."      (Ibid.,  p.  292.) 

Not  only  did  he  thus  denounce  Polk  and  the  men  who  elected 
him  in  bringing  under  our  flag  the  vast  territory  which  now  em- 
braces California,  Texas,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  and  Nevada,  and 
parts  of  Utah  and  Colorado,  but  he  also  denounces  Winfield  Scott, 
Zachary  Taylor  and  Lewis  Cass,  who  contributed  to  the  success  of 
Polk's  administration.    According  to  Roosevelt,  the  historian, 

"Scott  and  Taylor  were  not  great  generals."  (Roosevelt's  "Life  of 
Benton,"  p.  268.)  "Lewis  Cass,  a  Northern  pro-slavery  politician  of 
moderate  ability."  (The  same,  p.  329.)  "Winfield  Scott  a  wholly 
absurd  and  flatulent  personage."      (The  same,  p.  344.) 

Not  until  he  found  it  necessary  to  win  Democratic  support  for 
his  policy  of  imperialism  did  he  ever  say  a  word  in  praise  of  any 
Democratic  statesman  or  any  Democratic  achievement.  Speaking 
of  the  founders  of  the  Democratic  party  in  his  books,  he  says  that 
they  were  "inferior  in  intelligence";  that  their  "whole  influence 
was  distinctly  evil";  that  their  leaders  were  "doctrinaire  politi- 


THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  "BIG  STICK."  197 

cians" ;  that  Jefferson  was  "constitutionally  unable  to  put  a  proper 
value  on  truth";  that  General  Wilkinson  was  "a  double  traitor, 
bribe-taker  and  corrupt  servant  of  a  foreign  government";  that 
Madison  was  "a  ridiculously  incompetent  leader";  that  Monroe 
was  "a  failure";  and  that  Benton  was  "aflSicted  with  a  rage  for  the 
cheap  pseudo-classism  of  Jefferson." 

These  libellous  and  scandalous  sayings  reflect  the  true  spirit  of 
Theodore  Roosevelt.  What  he  now  says  is  said  only  to  win  ap- 
proval for  the  "big  stick"  policy,  by  insinuating  that  such  a  policy 
was  really  inaugurated  by  Jefferson,  and  Monroe,  and  not  by  "the 
big  American  corporations"  which  he  is  serving,  and  which  he 
seeks  to  enthrone  in  the  Philippines,  Porto  Rico,  Cuba  and  Santo 
Domingo.  Even  when  he  tells  the  truth,  he  does  so  in  order  to 
disguise  an  evil  purpose,  or  to  justify  by  precedent  a  wicked 
policy.  Surely,  no  one  who  values  sincerity  will  be  influenced  by 
the  utterances  of  Mr.  Roosevelt. 

MATTERS  AFFECTING  THE  PRESIDENT. 

The  President  favors  certain  railroads  and  accepts  gifts  from 
them — ^Violated  the  interstate  commerce  law — Demands  and  re- 
ceives money  for  junketing  expenses — Authorizes  deposits  of  pub- 
lic money  in  favored  banks  without  interest — ^Diverts  funds  ap- 
propriated for  one  purpose  to  another — Allows  public  money  to 
pay  for  a  literary  bureau  to  boom  his  policy. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  has  shown  greater  regard  for  the  interests  of 
corporations  and  less  regard  for  the  law  than  any  other  Executive 
the  country  has  ever  had. 

In  1901  and  1903,  he  joined  with  his  partisans  in  Congress  in  a 
series  of  measures  in  the  interest  of  the  Pennsylvania  and  Balti- 
more and  Ohio  railroads,  by  means  of  which  those  two  corpora- 
tions were  given  $3,000,000,  in  money,  besides  several  million  dol- 
lars' worth  of  lands  in  the  City  of  Washington,  and  franchises 
worth  at  least  $50,000,000.  Half  of  the  money  thus  given  came 
out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  and  half  out  of  the  reve- 
nues of  the  District  of  Columbia;  but  neither  the  United  States 
nor  the  District  of  Columbia  obtained  in  return  for  it  any  stock 
or  other  pecuniary  interest  in  the  railroads.  Immediately  after 
the  conclusion  of  this  deal,  which  was  opposed  by  the  Democrats, 
the  President,  as  the  guest  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  the  chief 
beneficiary  of  the  steal,  made  a  tour  of  the  country,  which  cost 
$50,000,  all  the  bills  being  paid  by  that  corporation. 

This  matter  caused  a  great  deal  of  discussion  in  the  summer  of 
1903,  and  one  of  the  leading  newspapers  of  the  country  said: 

"The  discussion  about  who  defrayed  the  expenses  of  the  trip  of  the 
President  to  the  Pacific  coast  has  gone  on  apace,  but  with  great 
moderation.  A  friend  representing  the  President  takes  up  the  subject 
in  defense  in  the  New  Yorlc  Tribune,  and  it  is  an  admission  that  the 
President  has  been  traveling  about  the  country,  with  a  large  party  of 
friends,  assistants  and  clerks,  without  paying  railroad  fares  and  with- 
out paying  for  the  costly  entertainment  provided  by  the  companies  in 
the  way  of  food  and  refreshment.  The  defense  made  by  the  President 
is  'that  he  could  hardly  be  expected  to  defray  the  cost  of  the  special 
train  out  of  his  own  private  purse.'  The  railroad  corporations  did 
that   and   it   amounted   to   a   considerable   sum.     The   only   defense 


198  THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  ''BIG  STICKS 

attempted  is  that  the  President's  predecessors  established  the  custom 
of  'dead-heading,'  or  at  least  some  of  them  did.  The  New  York  Sun 
in  discussing  the  question  points  forcibly  to  the  Federal  law  on  the 
subject,  the  latest  of  which  was  the  President's  own  corporation  and 
'publicity'  act,  signed  by  him  in  February  last,  and  which  declares: 

"  'Section  3 — That  whenever  the  interstate  commerce  commission 
shall  have  reasonable  ground  for  belief  that  any  common  carrier  is 
engaged  in  the  carriage  of  passengers  or  freight  traffic  between  given 
points  at  less  than  the  published  rates  on  file,  or  is  committing  any 
discriminations  forbidden  by  law,  a  petition  may  be  presented  alleging 
such  facts  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  sitting  in  equity 
having  jurisdiction.' 

"The  same  law  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  United  States  district 
attorneys  to  prosecute  violators  of  the  statute.  Some  persons  are 
exempted  from  the  penalties  of  the  law,  but  Federal  officials  are  not. 
The  President  is  sworn  to  enforce  the  law,  but  in  reality  he  became  a 
party  to  its  violation.  It  is  advised  to  prevent  such  scandals  that 
Congress  should  appropriate  money  ample  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
these  electioneering  tours,  for  in  reality  that  is  what  they  amounted 
to." 

There  was  so  much  criticism  of  this  affair  that  the  President 
finally  appealed  to  Congress  for  an  appropriation  out  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  meet  his  traveling  e^enses,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  un- 
able to  pay  them  himself,  and  disliked  to  travel  at  the  expense  of 
the  railroads.  Congress,  in  1906,  upon  the  President's  suggestion, 
and  against  the  protests  of  the  Democratic  members  of  both 
houses,  passed  a  bill  granting  him  $25,000  a  year  to  pay  the  trav- 
eling expenses  of  himself  and  his  invited  guests.  The  arguments 
and  votes  on  this  bill  will  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Record 
for  June  20,  21  and  22,  1906.  The  vote  in  the  House  stood,  for  the 
bill  176,  all  Republicans  (except  Bourke  Cockran);  against  the 
bill,  66,  all  Democrats.  (Record,  p.  9059.)  The  vote  in  the 
Senate  stood,  for  the  bill,  42,  all  Republicans;  against  it,  20,  all 
Democrats  (except  McCumber).     (Record,  p.  9238.) 

This  bill  was  clearly  in  violation  of  that  section  of  the  Constitu- 
tion which  provides  that  "the  President  shall  at  stated  times  re- 
ceive for  his  services  a  compensation,  which,"  whatever  it  may 
be,  "shall  neither  he  increased  nor  diminished  during  the  period 
for  which  he  shall  have  heen  elected;  and  he  shall  not  receive 
loithin  that  period  any  other  emolument — any  gain,  perquisite, 
or  advantage  arising  from,  incidental  to,  or  connected  with  the 
office  of  President — "from  the  United  States,  or  any  of  them." 

THE  POLICY  OF  THE  PRESIDENT  RELATING  TO  NATIONAL 
BANKS  AND   BANK   DEPOSITS. 

i 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  with  the  President's  approval,  has 
again  and  again  deposited  large  sums  of  public  money  amounting 
to  tens  of  millions  of  dollars  in  favored  banks  without  interest, 
not  for  safekeeping  merely,  but  confessedly  to  benefit  the  banks; 
to  enable  them  to  buy  gold  abroad,  or  to  lend  money  to  stock 
gamblers  in  Wall  Street;  thus  making  the  people's  treasury  an 
accessory  in  the  wicked  game  of  fleecing  the  people.  This  is  a 
violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  law;  though  it  is  not  expressly  pro- 
hibited because  when  the  banking  law  was  passed  it  was  incon- 
ceivable that  such  a  thing  could  ever  be  done  under  its  provisions. 
The  President  cannot  escape  responsibility  for  this  abuse.    He 


THE  MOTIVE  BEHIND  THE  'BIG  STICK:'  199 

has  repeatedly  endorsed  it,  and  has  asked  for  power  that  would 
allow  him  to  lend  all  the  public  money  to  the  banks.  In  his  an- 
nual message  of  December  7,  1903,  the  President  said: 

"The  same  liberty  should  be  granted  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  deposit  customs  receipts  as  is  granted  him  in  the  deposit 
of  receipts  from  other  sources." 

*/ 
This  would  enable  the  banks  to  handle  the  entire  income  of 
the  country  without  interest.  In  his  annual  message  of  December 
5,  1905,  he  admits  that  he  has  adopted  measures  not  authorized  by 
Congress  in  this  respect,  but  "which  should  be  provided  by  Con- 
gressional action."    He  says: 

"At  present  the  Treasury  Department  is  at  irregularly  recurring 
intervals  obliged,  in  the  interest  of  the  business  world — that  is,  in^ 
the  interests  of  the  American  public — to  try  to  avert  financial  crises" 
by  providing  a  remedy,  which  should  be  provided  by  Congressional 
action." 

This  policy  of  pampering  favorite  banks  has  caused  so  much 
adverse  criticism  that  Secretary  Shaw  has  recently  announced 
that  he  will  lend  no  more  public  money  to  any  bank  for  specula- 
tive purposes;  but  he  does  not  define  speculative  purposes,  and 
keeps  right  on  lending  money  to  the  banks.  His  announcement  is 
a  confession  that  he  has  been  furnishing  Wall  Street  with  the 
means  of  rigging  the  market  for  years;  and  the  President's  utter- 
ances prove  that  it  has  been  done  with  his  sanction. 

Again,  the  President,  in  1905,  used  large  sums  of  public  money 
without  authority  of  law,  express  or  implied,  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  a  literary  bureau  located  in  Washington,  which  was  used  to 
influence  public  opinion  through  the  press  in  favor  of  his  personal 
policy  in  Panama.  This  bureau  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  actual 
building  of  the  canal;  its  only  purpose  being  to  laud  the  President 
and  his  wonderful  works  and  to  reply  to  criticisms  of  conditions 
on  the  Isthmus. 

At  its  head  was  a  gentleman  named  Bishop,  whose  salary  of 
$10,000  a  year  was  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  no  appropriation  had  been  made  for  such  payments,  and 
that  the  Spooner  act  did  not  authorize  any  such  expenditures. 
The  matter  was  brought  out  by  an  investigation  of  Panama  affairs 
by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Interoceanic  Canals,  and  elicited  so 
much  unfavorable  criticism  that  the  bureau  was  abolished.  But 
the  President  still  retained  Mr.  Bishop's  services  by  making  him 
a  sort  of  secretary  for  the  Canal  Commission  and  paying  as  large 
a  salary  as  ever. 

The  provision  of  the  Constitution  that  "no  money  shall  be 
drawn  from  the  Treasury  but  in  pursuance  of  appropriations  made 
by  law"  has  had  no  weight  with  the  President.  He  has  violated 
the  Constitution,  not  only  in  the  Bishop  case,  but  in  other  cases. 
For  instance.  Congress  appropriated  a  sum  of  money  to  build  a 
new  house  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment, and  fixed  the  plan,  the  limit  of  cost  and  the  location  of  the 
building.    But  the  President  changed  the  plan  and  location,  and 


20a     PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

spent  all  the  money  on  two  buildings,  or  wings,  to  be  connected 
in  the  future  at  two  or  three  times  the  cost  of  the  work  for  which 
Congress  had  made  the  appropriation. 

By  such  conduct  he  proclaims  his  lack  of  re\rerence  for  law, 
and  his  contempt  for  the  legislative  authority,  and  proves  himself 
to  be  a  law  unto  himself. 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

The  principles  of  the  Democratic  party  defy,  and  the  Demo- 
cratic party  has  always  opposed  monopoly,  whether  in  its  old 
form  or  the  new  style,  called  "trusts."  Andrew  Jackson  hated 
and  crushed  the  bank  monopoly,  that,  by  corrupt  means,  strenu- 
ously sought  to  control  Congress  in  its  efforts  to  free  the  people 
from  its  crushing  and  demoralizing  machinations. 

Jackson  approved  many  bills  reducing  the  tariff,  thus  avoiding 
the  creation  of  industrial  monopolies.  Furthermore,  his  was  the 
first  and  last  administration  to  pay  off  the  public  debt. 

Under  the  happy  influences  of  revenue  tariff  and  Democratic 
administration,  there  were  no  trusts  controlling  commerce  in  or 
between  the  States  until  after  the  Democratic  party  went  out  of 
power  in  1860.  Nevertheless,  the  Democrats  have  at  all  times 
openly  defied  monopoly,  and  in  1856,  about  the  very  birth  of  the 
Republican  party,  that  now  stands  sponsor  for  high  tariff  and 
trusts,  the  Democratic  party,  in  its  platform  proclaimed  that  one 
of  its  many  high  purposes  was: 

"To  sustain  and  advance  among  us  constitutional  liberty  by 
continuing  to  resist  all  monopolies  and  exclusive  legislation  for  the 
benefit  of  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many." 

The  Democratic  party  was  the  first  to  discover  and  point  out 
the  existence  and  dangerous  operations  of  the  new  form  of 
monopoly,  called  "trusts,"  and  charged  that  high  tariffs  bred, 
sheltered  and  protected  them,  and  demanded  tariff  reform,  "and 
the  prevention  of  monopoly." 

To  this  Mr.  Carnegie,  of  armor  plate  and  steel  trust  fame, 
replied: 

"The  public  may  regard  trusts  and  corporations  with  serene 
confidence." 

Taking  sides  with  Mr.  Carnegie  and  issue  with  the  Democratic 
party  in  his  memorable  candidacy  in  1884  for  the  Presidency,  Mr. 
Blaine  declared: 

"Trusts  are  private  affairs  with  which  the  people  have  no  concern." 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.     201 
In  1884,  Mr.  Blaine,  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  further  declared: 

"The  internal  commerce  of  our  38  States  is  carried  on  without  let 
or  hindrance,  without  tax,  detention  or  governmental  interference  of 
any  kind  lohatever.  It  spreads  freely  over  an  area  of  three  and  a  half 
million  square  miles — almost  equal  in  extent  to  the  whole  of  Europe. 
Its  profits  are  enjoyed  today  by  56,000,000  of  American  freemen,  and 
from  this  enjoyment  no  monopoly  is  created. 

"According  to  Alexander  Hamilton,  when  he  discussed  the  same 
subject  in  1790,  'the  internal  competition  which  takes  place,  does  away 
with  everything  like  monopoly,  and  by  degrees  reduces  the  prices  of 
articles  to  tlie  minimum  of  a  reasonable  profit  on  the  capital 
employed.* 

"IT  IS  IMPOSSIBLE  TO  POINT  TO  A  SINGLE  MONOPOLY  IN 
THE  UNITED  STATES  THAT  HAS  BEEN  CREATED  OR  FOS- 
TERED BY  THE  INDUSTRIAL  SYSTEM  WHICH  IS  UPHELD  BY 
THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY." 

Trusts  are  private!  Tariffs  do  not  create  or  foster  them!! 
Our  commerce  is  free!!!  Thus  spoke  Mr.  Blaine.  He  was 
defeated,  Mr.  Cleveland  elected  and  a  Democratic  House. 

The  proposition  to  reach,  by  congressional  action,  trusts  and 
combinations  engaged  in  federal  commerce  was  a  new  and 
extremely  difficult  kind  of  legislation,  as  shown  by  the  following 
statements  made  in  debating  the  trust  bills  from  which  evolved 
the  Anti-Trust  Act  of  1890: 

Senator  Piatt,  of  Connecticut,  said: 

"It  is  very  difficult  to  see  that  anything  can  be  reached" — ^under 
the  Commerce  Clause  of  the  Constitution.  (March  24,  1890,  Record, 
Vol.  21,  p.  568.) 

On  April  8,  1890,  Senator  Hoar  said: 

"Senators  will  remember  that  this  is  entering  upon  a  new  and  un- 
trodden field  of  legislation.  It  is  imdertaking  to  curb  by  national  au- 
thority an  evil  which,  under  the  opinions  which  have  prevailed  of  old 
under  all  our  legislative  precedents  and  policies,  has  been  left  to  be 
dealt  with  either  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  trade  or  to  be  dealt  with 
by  the  State."     ♦     *     * 

Senator  Hiscock,  March  24,  1890,  contended  that  all  the  bills 
were  unconstitutional,  but  of  these,  he  favored  the  Reagan  bill, 
which  "upon  its  face,"  said  he,  "it  would  afford  some  relief." 

On  March  24,  1890,  Mr.  Sherman  said: 

"The  power  of  Congress  is  the  only  one  that  can  bring  all  the  parties 
to  combinations  before  a  tribunal  and  have  that  tribunal  pronounce 
judgment,  not  in  a  criminal  suit,  but  in  a  civil  suit."  (Vol.  21,  Rec- 
ord, 2569.) 

In  the  Fiftieth  Congress  just  before  this  (Fifty-first)  Senator 
Sherman  said  it  could  only  be  done  by  the  taxing  power. 

Senator  Sherman  at  first  opposed  a  criminal  section  but  after 
the  Senate  had  voted  the  Reagan  bill,  March  25,  1890,  into  the 
Sherman  bill,  he  acquiesced. 

March  26,  1890,  Mr.  Sherman  had  changed.    He  said: 

"The  proposition  made  by  the  Senator  from  Texas  (Mr.  Reagan)  is 
also  in  the  right  direction,  and,  after  careful  consideration  of  that 
proposition,  there  can  be  no  objection  to  it  so  far  as  any  one  who  is  in 


202     PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS^. 

favor  of  the  principle  of  the  bill  is  concerned.  It  adds  a  criminal 
clause  and  defines  somewhat  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  the  original 
bill.     So  far  so  good. 

"There  are  two  propositions  in  it  (the  bill)  of  great  importance. 
The  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Texas  (Mr.  Reagan)  which  is 
how  a  distinct  and  separate  amendment." 

March  25,  1890,  Mr.  Edmunds  said: 

"I  should  not  have  referred  to  this  matter  (failure  of  Judiciary 
Committee  to  report  Reagan  bill)  at  all  if  the  Senator  from  Kansas, 
to  whom  I  meant  no  offense,  of  course,  had  not  alluded  to'  the  fact  that 
the  substance  of  this  measure,  the  hest  arrangement  that  had  been 
proposed,  in  the  first  instance,  that  I  know  of,  the  Mil  of  the  Senator 
from  Texas,  was  referred  to  that  committee  and  had  not  been  reported. 
That  seemed  to  imply  a  reproach  upon  the  committee,  a  neglect  of 
public  interests." 

On  April  8,  1890,  Mr.  Edmunds,  in  speaking  of  Mr.  Reagan  and 
the  Reagan  bill,  said: 

"Now,  I  come  to  the  amendment  of  my  friend  from  Texas  (Mr. 
Reagan).  *  *  *  i  know  he  is  perfectly  earnest  about  this  busi- 
ness and  I  think  he  introduced  the  best  and  the  first  hill  upon  the 
subject." 

Senator  Reagan,  January  25,  1889,  said: 

"If  we  have  tne  power  to  deal  with  this  subject,  it  seems  to  me  it 
must  be  under  the  Commerce  Clause." 

Mr.  Turpie: 

"There  is  a  bill  introduced  by  the  Senator  from  Texas  (Mr.  Reagan) . 
It  is  a  most  carefully  and  elaborately  prepared  bill  as  far  as  the 
penal  section  is  concerned." 

Senator  Hawley,  March  26,  1890 — "Nobody  from  the  Committee  on 
Finance  has  advocated  this  (Sherman)  bill  (S.  1)  except  the  distin- 
guished reporter  (Mr.  Sherman)  and  perhaps  its  author.  I  do  not 
remember  that  any  one  else  has  spoken  for  it  from  that  committee." 

His  motion  to  refer  it  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  was  defeated : 
Yeas  24,  nays,  29. 

DEMOCRATS   FIRST. 

The  Democrats  were  first  to  discover  and  point  out  and 
denounce  "trusts."  They  were  first  to  report  on  trusts.  They 
were  first  to  introduce  anti-trust  bills  in  Congress.  They  were 
first  to  base  these  bills  on  the  commerce  clause  where  the  law 
now  rests.  They  were  first  to  base  these  bills  on  that  clause  with 
civil  and  criminal  provisions. 

Judge  Key  (Democrat)  tried  and  decided  the  first  case  under 
the  Anti-trust  Act  of  1890. 

Judge  Harmon  (Democrat)  was  the  first  Attorney-General  to 
win  a  case  in  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  under  this  law — Trans- 
Missouri  suit.  He  filed  the  Joint  Traffic  and  Pipe  cases;  they 
were  won.  These  are  the  three  leading  cases  under  the  anti-trust 
law  and  Judge  Peckham  (Democrat),  Associate  Justice,  wrote  the 
opinion  of  tlie  court  in  these  three  cases. 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.     203 

DEMOCRATS    FIRST    TO    INTRODUCE    ANTI-TRUST    BILLS. 

The  Democrats  also  introduced  the  first  bill  in  Congress 
(Fiftieth)  to  regulate  what  is  known  as  Trusts.  This  fact  is 
shown  by  Senate  Doc.  147,  Fifty-second  Congress,  second  session, 
1903,  prepared  by  direction  of  the  Attorney-General,  who  was  at 
that  time  Mr.  P.  C.  Knox.  It  contains  and  is  entitled  "Bills  and 
Debates  in  Congress  Relating  to  Trusts,  Fiftieth  Congress  to 
Fifty-seventh  Congress,  first  session,  inclusive.  Washington, 
Government  Printing  Office,  1903."'  We  must,  therefore,  presume 
that  Mr.  Knox  caused  to  be  printed  in  this  document  all  trust  bills 
introduced  in  Congress  down  to  and  including  those  in  the  first 
session  of  the  Fifty-seventh  Congress — 1903.  The  Librarian 
(Congressional)  investigated  and  finds  none  were  introduced  in 
the  Forty-ninth  Congress. 


List  of  bills  introduced  in  the  Congresses  named  according  to 
the  official  date  of  Introduction,  as  shown  by  official  file  numbers. 
House  bills  are  marked  "H.  R."  and  Senate  bills  "S." 

1888 — (Fiftieth  Congress). 

H.  R.  6,113 Stone  (Ky.) D.Jan.  30,  1 

H.  R.  6,117 Rayner D.  Jan.  30,  2 

H.  R.  8,036 Breckenridge D.  Marcli  5,  3 

H.  R.  8,054 Thomas R.  March  5,  4 

H.  R.  9,449 McDonald D.  April  16,  5 

S.  2.906 a  Teller   (I.  R.) May  10,  6 

H.  R.  10,049 Springer   D.  May  21,  7 

H.  R.  10,928 Springer   D.  July  23,  8 

S.  3,440 Reagan    D.  Aug.  14,  9 

S.  3,445 b  Sherman   R.  Aug.  14,  10 

H.  R.  11,213 Anderson    D.  Aug.  20,  11 

S.  3,476 Reagan    D.  Aug.  22,  12 

H.  R.  11,279 Anderson    D.  Aug.  27,  13 

H.  R.  11,339 Newton D.   Sept.  3,  14 

H.  R.  11,343 Anderson    D.   Sept.  3,  15 

S.  3,510 Cullom   R.   Sept.  4,16 

H.  R.  11,395 Henderson  (N.  C.) D.   Sept.  10,  17 

H.  R.  11,401 Culberson   D.   Sept.  10,  18 

H.  R.  11,534 Abbott D.   Oct.  1,  19 

aNow  a  Democrat. 

bintroduced  after  the  Democrats  had  filed  one  of  their  reports  on  trusts, 
July  30,  1888,  H.  R.  3121,  Fiftieth  Congress. 

1889 — (Fifty-fire^t  Congress). 

S.  1 Sherman R.  Dec. 

S.  6 George    D.  Dec. 

S.  62 ,  Reagan   D.  Dec. 

H.  R.  91 McRae D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        179 Stewart  (Ga.) D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        202 Fithian   D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        270 Henderson   (la.) R.  Dec. 

H.  R.        286 Conger    R.  Dec. 

H.  R.         313 Lacey    R.  Dec. 

H.  R.        402 Breckenridge D.Dec. 

H.  R.        509 Anderson    D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        811 Enloe    D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        826 Richardson     D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        830 Pierce   D.  Dec. 

H.  R.        846 Stewart   (Tex.) D.  Lee. 

H.  R.     3,294 Breckenridge    D.  Dec. 

H.  R.     3,353 Lester   D.  Dec. 

1890 — (Fifty-flrst  Congress). 

H.  R.     3,819 Lane    D.  Jan.  6.  18 

H.  R.     3,844 Perkins R.  Jan.  6.  19 

H.  R.     3,925 Abbott D.  J  an.  6,  20 

H.  R.     3,980 Culberson   D.  April  3,  21 

(Senate  Document  147,  Fifty-second  Congress,  Second  Session). 

(Bills  and  debates  in  Congress  relating  to  trusts.  Fiftieth  Congress  to 
Fiftv-seventh  Congress,  first  seesion  inclusive.  Prepared  by  direction  of 
the  Attorney  General,  Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1905). 


4, 

1 

4, 

2 

4, 

3 

18, 

4 

18, 

5 

18. 

(i 

18, 

7 

18, 

8 

18, 

9 

18, 

10 

18, 

11 

is; 

12 

18, 

13 

18, 

14 

18, 

15 

20, 

16 

20, 

17 

204     PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

This  document,  in  part,  shows:  That  the  first  trust  bill  was 
introduced  by  Mr.  W.  J.  Stone  (Democrat),  of  Kentucky,  January 
30,  1888;  that  the  second  was  by  Mr.  Rayner  (Democrat),  of 
Maryland,  on  the  same  day.  It  was  based  on  the  commerce 
clause.  The  third  was  by  Mr.  Breckenridge  (Democrat),  of 
Kentucky,  on  March  5,  while  of  the  fourteen  House  bills  (Fiftieth 
Congress)  only  one — the  fourth — was  introduced  by  a  Republican 
(Mr.  Thomas). 

The  Sherman  bill  was  tenth  of  the  nineteen  bills  introduced  in 
that  Fiftieth  Congress,  and  the  third  Senate  bill  Fiftieth  Con- 
gress, S.  3445,  while  Mr.  Reagan's  was  second,  S.  3440.  Both  were 
introduced  August  14,  1888. 

Mr.  Sherman  protested  against  referring  the  Reagan  bill  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee  instead  of  the  Finance  Committee,  of 
which  he  was  chairman.  The  Reagan  bill  contained  a  definition 
of  a  trust  and  a  criminal  section  with  heavy  penalty,  and  was 
based  on  the  commerce  clause.  Hence  it  was  sent  to  the  law  or 
Judiciary  Committee.  It  was  the  first  bill  in  the  Senate  contain- 
ing a  criminal  section  based  on  the  commerce  clause. 

The  earlier  House  bills  by  Stone,  Rayner  and  Breckenridge  also 
contained  criminal  and  civil  sections. 

The  Rayner  bill  of  January  30,  1888,  particularly  well  framed, 
based  on  the  commerce  clause,  where  the  anti-trust  act  of  1890 
was  finally  based  as  a  result  of  Democratic  efforts — mainly  of 
Reagan  and  George  and  Vest  as  the  debates  in  the  Record  show. 

In  objecting,  August  14,  1888,  to  the  Reagan  bill  being  sent  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee,  Senator  Sherman  said: 

SHERMAN'S  PLAN— TAXING  POWER  ONLY  POWER  TO 
REGULATE  TRUSTS. 

"I  wish  to  say  that  the  Committee  on  Finance  has  already  been 
charged  with  the  consideration  of  this  subject.  I  have  myself  given 
some  attention  to  it,  to  see  how  far  it  is  within  the  constitutional 
power  of  Congress  to  so  limit  trusts  and  combinations  in  restraint 
of  trade.  IT  IS  VERY  CLEAR  THERE  IS  NO  SUCH  POWER 
UNLESS  IT  IS  DERIVED  FROM  THE  POWER  OF  LEVYING 
TAXES,  THAT  IT  IS  A  POWER  WHICH  MUST  BE  EXERCISED 
BY  EACH  STATE  FOR  ITSELF.  WHETHER  SUCH  LEGISLA- 
TION CAN  BE  INGRAFTED  IN  OUR  PECULIAR  SYSTEM  OF 
GOVERNMENT  BY  THE  NATIONAL  AUTHORITY  THERE  IS 
SOME  DOUBT.  IF  IT  CAN  BE  DONE  AT  ALL,  IT  MUST  BE 
DONE  UPON  A  TARIFF  BILL  OR  UPON  A  REVENUE  BILL.  I 
DO  NOT  SEE  IN  WHAT  OTHER  WAY  IT  CAN  BE  DONE. 
(Record,  Vol.  19,  Part  8,  page  7512.) 

Bear  in  mind  the  (Sherman)  anti-trust  law  was  based  on  the 
"commerce  clause"  of  the  constitution  and  not  on  the  "taxing 
power." 

FIRST     RESOLUTION     IN     THE    HOUSE    TO     INVESTIGATE 

TRUSTS— HOUSE   DEMOCRATIC— REPORT   MADE. 

FIFTIETH  CONGRESS. 

The  Democrats  were  the  first  (January  25,  1888)  to  order  an 
investigation  of  trusts  and  their  operations  and  report  a  remedy. 
They  did  investigate  and  did  report,  and  this  report  was  referred 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.     205 


to  by  Senator  Sherman  and  others  as  authority  in  discussing  the 
subject  in  the  Senate  (Fifty-first  Congress).  The  committee 
began  work  March  8,  1888,  and  filed  a  report  July  22,  1888,  and  a 
final  report  March  2,  1889,  Fiftieth  Congress. 

HOUSE    RESOLUTIONS— FIFTIETH    CONGRESS. 

The  Committee  on  Manufactures  was  directed  to  investigate 
trusts,  their  operations,  extent,  names  and  number,  methods,  etc., 
"and  report  the  same  to  the  House  with  such  recommendations 
as  the  said  committee  may  agree  upon." 

This  Democratic  committee  reported  that  it  had  investigated 
trusts,  particularly  the  Standard  Oil  Trust,  Whiskey  Trust, 
Cotton  Bagging  Trust  and  Sugar  Trust  and  submitted  over  1,200 
page§  of  testimony  on  these  trusts  and  stated  that  many  other 
trusts  were  in  existence  and  were  rapidly  forming,  affecting  "a 
large  portion  of  the  important  manufacturing  and  industrial 
interests  of  the  country."  "They  do  not  report  any  lists  of  these 
combinations,  for  the  reason  that  new  ones  are  constantly  form- 
ing, and  that  old  ones  are  constantly  extending  their  relations 
so  as  to  cover  new  branches  of  business  and  invade  new  terri- 
tories." "That  owing  to  present  differences  of  opinion  between 
the  members  of  the  committee  they  limit  this  report  to  submit- 
ting to  the  careful  consideration  and  subsequent  Congresses  the 
facts  shown  by  the  testimony  taken  before  the  committee." 

A  minority  report  was  filed,  signed  by  James  Buchanan,  a 
Republican.     It  reads: 

"VIEWS  OF  THE   MINORITY." 

"The  undersigned  deems  the  record  in  this  case  incomplete  without 
the  documents  hereto  annexed  as  appendices.  'A'  is  a  very  able  review 
of  the  authorities  bearing  upon  the  LEGALITY  of  trusts.  'B'  is  the 
opinion  of  Judge  Barrett,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York,  in  the 
sugar-refining  case,  discussing  the  same  question.  *C'  is  the  offer 
by  the  solicitor  of  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  to  disprove  certain  matters 
in  testimony  relating  to  such  trust.  As  these  matters  appear  of 
record,  uncontradicted,  it  would  seem  but  fair  to  put  upon  record  the 
offer  to  disprove.  'D'  and  'E'  are  submitted  as  fair  specimens  of  the 
CRUDENESS  and  limited  operation  of  remedies  PROPOSED  in  the 
measures  submitted  to  the  committee."  (Fiftieth  Congress,  Second 
Session,  Report  4165,  Part  2.) 

Exhibit  "A"  was  an  ultra  pro-trust  article  by  Prof.  Theo.  W. 
Dwight,  from  which  is  quoted  this: 

"Let  us  therefore  be  calm.  Trusts,  as  a  rule,  are  not  dangerous. 
They  are,  however,  a  sign  of  the  times.  The  right  of  association  is  the 
child  of  freedom  of  trade.     It  is  too  late  to  banish  it." 

A  pro-trust  argument. 

Exhibits  "D"  and  "E"  were  the  first  (Stone's)  and  second 
(Rayner's)  House  bills  ever  introduced  in  Congress  to  control 
trusts.  The  Stone  bill  contained  a  civil  and  criminal  section. 
The  Rayner  bill  contained  a  criminal  section  and  prohibited  all 
contracts,  etc.,  in  restraint  of  interstate  commerce,  and  was  based 
on  the  commerce  clause.  Tbe  Rayner  bill  blazed  the  way  rightly 


206     PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

to  frame  such  a  law  and  was  similar  to  the  bill  that  became  the 
law,  July  2,  1890.  It  was  the  pioneer  bill  in  Congress  based  on 
the  commerce  clause.  Yet  the  Republican  minority  ridiculed 
these  bills,  showing  their  love  for  the  trusts  and  their  ignorance 
of  how  to  outlaw  them,  and  printed  pro-trust  articles  as  part  of 
the  "views  of  the  minority,"  while  Mr.  Buchanan  suggested  no 
hill  and  introduced  none. 

FIRST    RESOLUTION    TO    INVESTIGATE    TRUSTS    IN    THE 
SENATE— SENATE  REPUBLICAN— NO  REPORT  MADE. 

On  July  10,  1888,  Fiftieth  Congress,  Mr.  Sherman  introduced  a 
resolution  to  investigate  and  report  on  trusts  and  had  it  referred 
to  the  Finance  Committee,  of  which  he  was  chairman.  But  he 
made  no  report,  and  no  report  was  made  in  the  Senate  on  that 
subject.  The  Senate  was  Republican.  Mr.  Sherman  had  plenary 
power  to  act  and  had  the  full  benefit  of  the  House  report,  filed 
July  22,  and  the  many  House  bills  already  filed.  No  excuse  is 
seen  for  his  failure.    The  bill  he  introduced  he  abandoned. 

SHERMAN    RESOLUTION     TO     INVESTIGATE    TRUSTS— NO 
INVESTIGATION  AND  NO  REPORT. 

Here  is  Senator  Sherman's  (Fiftieth  Congress)  resolution  of 
June  10,  1888,  to  investigate  trusts  and  report  a  bill  to  remedy  the 
evil  "in  connection  with  any  bill  raising  or  reducing  revenue": 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Finance  be  directed  to  inquire 
into  and  report,  in  connection  with  any  bill  raising  or  reducing 
revenue  that  may  be  referred  to  it,  such  measures  as  it  may  deem 
expedient  to  set  aside,  control,  restrain,  or  prohibit  all  arrangements, 
contracts,  agreements,  trusts,  or  combinations  between  persons  or 
corporations,  made  with  a.  view,  or  which  tend  to  prevent  free  and 
full  competition  in  the  production,  manufacture,  or  sale  of  articles 
of  domestic  growth  or  production,  or  of  the  sale  of  articles  imported 
into  the  United  States,  or  which,  against  public  policy,  are  designed  to 
tend  or  foster  monopoly  or  to  artificially  advance  the  cost  to  the 
consumer  of  necessary  articles  of  human  life,  with  such  penalties  and 
provisions,  and  as  to  corporations,  with  such  forfeitures,  as  will  tend 
to  preserve  freedom  of  trade  and  production,  the  natural  competition 
of  increasing  production,  the  lowering  of  prices  by  such  competition, 
and  the  full  benefit  designed  by  and  hitherto  conferred  by  the  policy 
of  the  Government  to  protect  and  encourage  American  industries  by 
levying  duties  on  imported  goods." 

Mr.  Sherman  made  no  report,  but  on  August  14,  1888,  he  intro- 
duced his  first  anti-trust  bill,  S.  3445,  Fiftieth  Congress,  entitled, 
"A  BILL  TO  DECLARE  UNLAWFUL  TRUSTS  AND  COMBINA- 
TIONS IN  RESTRAINT  OF  TRADE  AND  PRODUCTION." 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled.  That  all  arrange- 
ments, contracts,  agreements,  trusts,  or  combinations  between  persons 
or  corporations  made  with  a  view,  or  which  tend,  to  prevent  full  and 
free  competition  in  the  production,  manufacture,  or  sale  of  articles  of 
domestic  growth  or  production,  or  of  the  sale  of  articles  imported 
into  the  United  States,  and  all  arrangements,  contracts,  agreements, 
trusts,  or  combinations  between  persons  or  corporations  designed,  or 
which  tend,  to  advance  the  cost  to  the  customer  of  any  such  articles, 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.     207 

are  hereby  declared  to  be  against  public  policy,  unlawful,  and  void; 
and  any  such  person  or  corporation  injured  or  damnified  by  such 
arrangement,  contract,  agreement,  trust,  or  corporation  may  sue  for 
and  recover  in  any  court  of  the  United  States  of  competent  jurisdic- 
tion double  the  amount  of  damages  suffered  by  such  person  or  cor- 
poration. And  any  corporation  doing  business  in  the  United  States 
that  acts  or  takes  part  in  any  such  arrangement,  contract,  agreement, 
trust,  or  corporation  shall  forfeit  its  corporate  franchise;  and  it  shall 
he  the  duty  of  the  district  attorney  of  the  United  States  of  the 
district  in  which  such  corporations  exist  or  does  business  to  institute 
the  proper  proceedings  to  enforce  such  forfeiture. 

Mr.  Sherman  reported  a  substitute  for  this  bill.  The  Senate 
considered,  amended  and  debated  this  substitute  and  a  Republican 
Senate  agreed  to  adjourn,  and  did  adjourn  Congress  without  pass- 
ing it  or  reporting  any  other  trust  bill  or  making  any  report  on 
the  subject  of  trusts. 

FIFTY-FIRST  CONGRESS— REPUBLICAN. 

A  Republican  Senate  repudiated  and  refused  to  pass  Mr.  Sher- 
man's S.  1,  introduced  in  the  Fifty-first  Congress.  Mr.  Sherman 
admits,  as  shown  herein,  in  his  book,  that  none  of  Ms  hills  became 
the  law. 

January  14,  1890,  he  reported  S.  1  ivith  amendments.  It  was 
ably  discussed  by  Republicans  and  Democrats.  It  contained  three 
sections.  March  18  he  reported,  as  usual,  an  "Amendment"  in 
lieu,  containing  two  sections.  By  March  25,  fourteen  sections  had 
been  added  to  this  substitute,  making  a  bill  of  sixteen  sections. 
It  was  otherwise  amended  before  and  thereafter. 

The  Reagan  bill  was  bodily  adopted  as  an  amendment  to  the 
Sherman  bill,  S.  1,  by  the  following  vote: 

VOTE  ON   REAGAN   BILL,  MARCH  25,  1890. 

Ayes — 34. 
Allen,    Pop.  George,  Dem.        Moody,   Rep.         Vest,   Dem. 

Allison,   Rep.        Gorman,    Dem.     Paddok,   Rep.        Walthoi-p,    Dem. 
Bate,    Dem.  Gray,    Dem.  Payne,    Dem.        Washburn,    Rep. 

Berry,    Dem.         Harris,    Dem.       Pierce,  Rep.  Wilson,    Rep., 

Blackburn,    Dem.Hawley,  Rep.        Pugh,    Dem.  of    Iowa. 

Cockrell,    Dem.     Higgins,   Dem.      Reagan,  Dem.       Wilson,   Dem., 
Coke,   Dem.  Engalls,    Rep.       Spooner,    Rep.  of  Maryland. 

Cullom,  Rep.         Jones,    Dem.,        Teller,   Rep. 
Davis,  Rep.  of   Arkansas.  Turpie,    Dem. 

Faulkner,   Dem.  Mandison,    Rep.  Vance,  Dem. 

Nays— 12. 
Aldrich,    Rep.       Frye,    Rep.  McPherson,   Rep.  Plumb,    Rep. 

Blair,    Rep.  Hi-^cock,    Rep.      Mitchell,   Rep.      Sherman,    Rep. 

Dawes,   Rep.  Hoar,  Rep.  Morrell,    Rep.       Stewart,   Rep. 

The  Reagan  bill  defined  a  trust,  contained  a  criminal  section, 
another,  making  all  contracts,  etc.,  in  restraint  of  interstate  and 
foreign  commerce  unlawful,  etc. 

Three  or  four  motions  were  made  and  defeated  to  refer  the 
Mil,  S.  1,  with  amendments  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  They 
were  made  by  Democrats  and  Republicans,  the  best  lawyers  in 
the  Senate.  Finally  on  March  27,  1890,  the  bill  and  amendments 
were  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  on  motion  of  Mr. 


208     PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

Walthall,  with  instructions  to  report  a  Mil  within  twenty  days. 
By  a  vote  of  31  to  28,  the  bill  and  amendments  were  referred  to 
that  committee,  Mr.  Sherman  voting  "no." 

The  Judiciary  Committee  was  composed  of  Senators  Edmunds, 
Evarts,  Hoar,  Ingalls  and  Wilson,  of  Iowa,  Republicans,  and  Sena- 
tors Vest,  Pugh,  George  and  Coke,  Democrats.  Their  unanimous 
report  was  filed  April  2.  This  committee  reported  a  new  bill, 
striking  out  every  word  of  the  Sherman  bill,  including  its  title, 
leaving  its  enacting  clause  and  number  "S.  1,"  which  the  new  bill 
inherited,  of  course.  The  bill  passed  (this  Judiciary  Committee 
bill)  the  Senate  April  8  and  finally  June  18  and  the  House  finally 
June  20,  1890,  without  a  dissenting  vote  and  became  the  law.  So 
none  of  Mr.  Sherman's  anti-trust  bills  in  the  Fiftieth  or  Fifty-first 
Congresses  became  the  law. 

Yet  we  find  in  and  out  of  Congress  the  Republicans  claim  that 
"John  Sherman's  anti-trust  bill  Senate  File  No.  1"  became  the 
law. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Secretary  Shaw  of  March  23,  1904,  found  in 
the  Republican  Campaign  Book  of  1904  at  page  192  states  this: 

"The  very  first  bill  introduced  in  the  Senate  of  the  51st  Congress 
was  John  Sherman's  anti-trust  bill  Senate  File  No.  1.  It  (John 
Sherman's)  passed  both  Houses  and  received  the  signature  of  Benja- 
min Harrison." 

Mr.  Sherman  in  his  book,  "Recollections  of  John  Sherman," 
page  173,  flatly  contradicts  Mr.  Shaw.    Mr.  Sherman  says: 

"In  the  previous  Congress  I  had  introduced  a  bill  to  declare  unlaw- 
ful trusts  and  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade  and  production,  but 
no  action  was  take  on  it.  On  December  4  I  again  introduced  this  bill, 
it  being  the  first  Senate  bill  introduced  in  that  Congress.  It  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  and  having  been  reported  back 
with  amendments  I  called  it  up  on  the  27th  of  February,  etc.  .  .  . 
I  subsequently  reported  a  substitute  from  the  Committee  on  Finance 
for  the  bill  and  on  March  21  I  made  a  long  speech  in  support  of  it. 
Various  amendments  were  offered.  Subsequently,  however,  the  bill 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  with  instructions 
to  report  within  twenty  days.  On  April  2  Mr.  Edmunds,  Chairman 
of  that  Committee,  reported  a  substitute  for  the  bill,  and  stated 
that,  while  it  did  not  entirely  meet  his  views,  he  was  willing  to 
support  it.  Mr.  Vest,  Mr.  George  and  Mr.  Coke,  members  of  the 
Committee,  made  statements  to  the  same  effect.  It  was  passed  by 
the  House  and  after  being  twice  referred  to  Committees  of  Conference 
was  finally  agreed  to,  the  title  having  been  changed  to  'An  Act  to 
Protect  Trade  and  Commerce  against  Unlawful  Restraint  and 
Monopoly,'  and  was  approved  by  the  President,  June  26,  1890." 

Mr.  Sherman  here  admits  that  his  trust  bills  in  the  Fiftieth 
and  Fifty-first  Congresses  failed  to  become  law  and  yet  with  the 
public  records  before  his  eyes,  with  Mr.  Sherman's  book,  pre- 
sumptively, at  least,  in  his  library — certainly  in  the  Congressional 
Library  nearby — Mr.  Shaw  persists  in  making,  along  with  other 
Republicans,  the  untrue  and  misleading  statement  that  "John 
Sherman's  anti-trust  bill.  Senate  file  No.  1,  passed  both  houses 
and  received  the  signature  of  Benj^-min  flarri^pn." 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.     209 

Mr.  Spooner,  February  21,  1901,  in  opposing  after  stating  he 
believed  that  the  Littlefield  Anti-Trust  bill  was  "unconstitu- 
tional," said: 

"  •  •  •  .  There  is  legislation  on  the  statute  books.  Our  juris- 
diction to  deal  with  this  question  is  derived  from  that  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  gives  to  Congress  the  power  to  regulate  commerce 
among  the  States,  with  Indian  tribes,  and  with  foreign  countries.  So 
far  as  the  power  falls  within  the  interstate-commerce  clause,  a  law 
years  ago  was  drawn  which  was  intended  to  exhaust  the  Federal  juris- 
diction upon  the  subject.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  the  time. 
It  was  committed  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  A  DEFECTIVE  BILL 
HAVING  BEEN  INTRODUCED  BY  MR.  SHERIVIAN.  Time  was 
taken  in  that  Committee.  Great  lawyers  were  upon,  that  committee 
who  participated  in  the  report.  Senator  Edmunds  was  its  chairman. 
The  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (IVTr.  Hoar),  than 
whom  I  know  no  greater  lawyer,  had  to  do  with  the  drafting  of  the 
bill.  Senator  George,  of  Mississippi,  who  was  a  great  lawyer,  partici- 
pated in  that  work.  That  bill  was  reported  to  the  Senate,  and  it  was 
intended  to  be  so,  and  it  was  so,  drawn  as  to  exhaust  the  Federal 
jurisdiction  upon  the  subject;  and  so  far  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  had  occasion  to  deal  with  it,  it  has  so  held,  in  my 
opinion. 

MORGAN  ANTI-TRUST  LAW. 

Later  when  the  Wilson  tariff  bill  was  under  discussion  here,  upon 
motion,  as  I  recollect  it,  of  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Alabama 
(Mr.  Morgan),  the  same  provisions  of  law  adapted  to  foreign  com- 
merce were  inserted  in  that  bill  and  became  a  law,  and  when  the  pres- 
ent tariff  law  was  enacted  by  an  express  *  provision  the  Morgan 
amendment  to  the  Wilson  bill  was  continued  in  force  and  is  now  the 
law.  I  have  not  found  any  Senator  yet  who  has  been  able  to  point  out, 
in  committee  or  out  of  it,  aside  from  enlarging  the  penalties  pre- 
scribed by  the  present  la^v,  any  jurisdiction  to  go  beyond  it." 

The  Senate  Judiciary  Bill  was  unanimously  reported  for  passage 
by  the  House  Judiciary  Committee,  April  25,  1890,  Mr.  Culberson 
(Democrat)  making  the  report.  The  next  day,  April  26th,  Mr. 
Heard  (Democrat)  introduced  a  resolution  to  make  this  bill  a 
special  order  for  May  8,  and  "consider  it  until  passed." 

This  resolution  was  defeated,  and,  on  May  1st,  the  House  con- 
sidered the  Senate  bill.  Mr.  Taylor  (Republican),  Chairman  of 
the  House  Judiciary  Committee,  yielded  the  floor  to  Mr.  Culberson 
(Democrat)  to  explain  the  bill.  He  did  this  so  well  that  Mr.  Can- 
non said: 

"I  want  to  thank  him  for  his  explanation.  After  the  able  presenta- 
tion of  it  by  the  gentleman  from  Texas,  there  is  not  much  left  to  say." 

-There  were  grave  doubts  entertained  as  to  whether  the  bill  ap- 
plied to  railroads,  railroad  combinations,  the  "Big  Four  Beef 
Trust,"  being  named  as  one,  and  to  remove  all  doubt,  make  the 
law  so  plain  as  to  leave  nothing  for  the  courts  to  construe,  and 
thereby  have  a  perfect  remedy  that  could  be  swiftly  executed,  Mr. 
Bland  (Democrat)  offered  this  as  an  amendment: 

\ 
BLAND  AMENDMENT. 

"(1).  Every  contrdct  or  agreement  entered  into  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  competition  in  the  sale  or  purpose  of  any  commodity 
transported  from  one  State  or  Territory  to  be  sold  vn  another,  or  so 


210     PARTY  HISTORt  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

contracted  to  be  sold,    (2)    or  for  the  transportation  of  persons  or 
property  from  one  State  or  Territory  into  another,  shall  be  deemed 
unlawful  within  the  meaning  of  this  Act ;  provided,  that  the  contracts  • 
herein  enumerated  shall  not  be  construed  to  exclude  any  other  con- 
tract or  agreement  declared  unlawful  in  this  Act." 

"The  amendment  was  adopted."     (21,  Record,  4104,  May  1,  1890.) 

Mr.  Bland  explained  his  amendment,  in  part,  thus: 

"It  (his  amendment)  provides  that  where  the  Big  Four  or  any  other 
corporation  or  company  are  proven  to  be  in  a  trust  as  to  any  com- 
modity, the  moment  that  commodity  leaves  the  State  or  is  to  be  sold 
in  another  and  is  in  in  transitu  it  becomes  the  subject  to  this  law. 
This  provision  does  reach  Armour  &  Co.,  without  leaving  the  matter 
to  the  construction  of  the  Supreme  Court.  It  does  it  in  direct  terms 
in  the  law,  and  I  want  my  friends  to  join  with  me  to  make  that 
definite  and  certain,  for  there  is  no  trust  in  this  country  that  today 
is  robbing  the  farmers  of  the  great  West  and  North  of  more  millions 
of  their  hard  earned  money  than  this  so-called  Big  Four  Beef  Trust 
of  Chicago. 

AGAINST  RAILROAD  COMBINATIONS. 

"This  amendment,  however,  goes  a  little  further  than  that,  and 
provides  that  where  there  is  a  combination  or  an  agreement  to  com- 
bine between  railroad  companies  or  transportation  companies  for  the 
tra/nsportation  of  persons  or  property  from  one  State  into  another, 
'a  pool,'  so  to  speak,  it  is  declared  to  be  subject  to  this  bill.  I  want 
at  least  two  things  to  be  known  to  be  covered  by  this  bill,  and  these 
two  are  the  most  important:  The  transportation  monopoly  and  the 
monopoly  of  the  great  cattle,  industry  of  this  country.  This  amend- 
ment will  cover  these  two  things,  but  God  knows,  or  no  man  in  this 
country  knows  what  else  the  bill  will  cover. 

"I  TRUST  THE  HOUSE  WILL  ADOPT  THE  AMENDMENT.  THE 
BILL  MAY  REACH  THE  CASE  WITHOUT  THE  AMENDMENT, 
BUT  I  FEAR  IT  WILL  NOT,  AND  FROM  ABUNDANT  CAUTION 
I  HAVE  OFFERED  IT."   (Record,  May  1,  1890.) 

His  amendment  was  then  UNANIMOUSLY  adopted,  and  the 
Senate  bill,  thus  amended,  passed  the  House  without  opposition 
May  1st,  1890. 

CONFERENCE  REPORT. 

The  Senate  ajnended  the  Bland  amendment  by  eliminating  its 
first  provision  and  substituting  for  the  second,  this: 

I 
SENATE  AMENDMENT. 

"Every  contract  or  agreement  entered  into  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting competition  in  the  transportation  of  persons  or  property 
from  one  State  to  another  or  Territory  so  that  the  RATES  of  such 
transportation  may  be  raised  above  what  is  just  or  reasonable  shall 
be  deemed  unlawful  within  the  meaning  of  this  act,  and  nothing  in 
this  act  shall  be  deemed  or  held  to  impair  the  power  of  the  several 
States  in  respect  of  any  of  the  matter  in  this  act  mentioned." 

"Statement  accompanying  report  (Jime  11)  of  conferees  on  the 
disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  houses  on  S.  1": 

STATEMENT  OF  CONFEREES. 

( 1 )  A  majority  of  the  Committee  of  conferehce  on  the  part  of  the 
House  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  Senate  Bill  1 
submit  the  following  statement. 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND   TRUSTS.     211 

(2)  In  the  original  bill  two  things  were  declared  illegal,  namely: 
Contracts  in  restraint  of  interstate  trade  or  commerce,  and  the 
monopolization  of  such  trade. 

(3)  Its  only  object  was  the  control  of  TRUSTS  SO  CALLED,  so 
far  as  such  combinations  in  their  relation  to  interstate  trade  are 
within  reach  of  Federal  legislation. 

(4)  The  House  (Bland)  amendment  extends  the  scope  of  the  aot 
to  ALL  agreements  entered  into  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  com- 
petition either  in  the  purchase  or  sale  of  commodities,  or  in  the 
TRANSPORTATION  of  persons  or  property  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
Congress. 

(5)  It  declares  illegal  any  agreement  for  relief  from  the  effects 
of  competition  in  the^  two  industries  of  TRANSPORTATION  and  mer- 
chandising, however  excessive  or  destructive  such  competition  may  be. 

(6)  The  amendment  reported  by  the  conferees  is  the  Senate 
amendment  with  the  added  proviso  that  the  power  of  the  States  over 
the  subjects  embraced  in  the  act  shall  not  be  impaired  thereby. 

(7)  It  strikes  from  the  House  amendment  the  clause  relating  to 
contracts  for  the  purchase  of  merchandise,  and  MODIFIES  THE 
TRANSPORTATION  CLAUSE  by  making  unlawful  agreements  which 
raise  rates  above  what  is  just  and  reasonable. 

This  conference  report  prepared  by  four  able  lawyers,  conferees, 
shows  they  construed  the  original  bill  thus: 

"Its  ONLY  object  was  the  control  of  TRUSTS,  SO  CALLED  .  .  . 
in  their  relation  to  interstate  trade." 

"The  House  AMENDMENT  extends  the  scope  of  the  act  to  all  agree- 
ments entered  into  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  competition,  either 
in  the  purchase  or  sale  of  commodities,  or  in  the  TRANSPORTATION^ 
of  persons  or  property  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress." 

Here  is  an  unfortunate  construction,  given  by  these  able  con- 
ferees, to  the  original  bill  as  applying  to  "ONLY,  trusts,  so- 
called,"  industrial  trusts,  and  as  not  applying  to  railroads 
engaged  in  the  "transportation  of  persons  or  property"  between 
the  States.  These  conferees  were  thus  asking  Congress  to  con- 
gressionally  construe,  and  at  the  same  time  enact,  this  bill  as 
applying  to  and  covering  only  industrial  trusts,  and  not  as  apply- 
ing to  or  covering  TRANSPORTATION  as  such,  of  persons  and 
property  between  the  States. 

Later  on  the  Bland  and  Senate  amendments  were  defeated. 

The  four  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  (White,  Shiras,  Fields 
and  Gray)  of  the  United  States,  in  writing  theirdissenting  opin- 
ion in  the  Trans- Missouri  case  (first  railroad  case  under  this 
law)  allude  to  THIS  construction  as  showing  that  CONGRESS 
did  NOT  intend  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law— t^e  then  pending 
bill-TO  APPLY  TO  RAILROADS. 

In  each  railroad  case,  under  this  law,  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  opinions  of  the  court  have  been  by  a  bare  majority  as 
follows: 

Trans-Missouri 5  to  4 

Joint  Traflac 5  to  3   (one  judge  not  sitting) 

Merger  Case 5  to  4 

with  great  douM  raised  since  the  last  case  as  to  how  two  of  the 
judges  may  hereafter  construe  this  law  in  similar  cOrses. 

The  result  has  been  to  block  practically  the  execution  of  this 
law  as  to  railroads,  certainly  its  swift  execution.  Each  case, 
as  a  rule,  is  appealed  to  and  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court,  after 


212       PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 

years  of  delay,  and  a  majority  only  of  the  Court  and  by  "con- 
struction" hold  the  law  applies  to  common  carriers. 

Mr.  Bland,  with  great  force,  said  this  would  be  the  result  and 
hence  he  protested  with  Mr.  Culberson  against  the  Senate  amend- 
ment and  urged  at  every  step  the  adoption  of  the  Bland  amend- 
ment. 

To  adopt  the  conference  report,  above  given,  was  to  adopt  by 
Congress  the  construction  at  the  original  bill  given  by  conferees. 
By  defeating  the  conference  report,  was  defeating  that  construc- 
tion and  by  adopting  the  Bland  amendment  the  bill  as  amended, 
beyond  all  doubt,  would  apply  to  industrial  trusts  and  railroads 
engaged  in  the  "transportation  of  persons  and  property"  between 
the  States. 

To  adopt  the  Senate  amendment  to  the  Bland  amendment,  it 
was  argued,  was  to  limit  the  amendment  to  railroad  "rates," 
excluding  railroads  as  railroads  transporting  persons  and  prop- 
erty and  all  contracts  pertaining  thereto,  except  those  as  to 
"RATES."  The  Commerce  Act  of  1887,  then  the  law,  made  rates 
that  were  unjust  or  unreasonable  unlawful.  Hence,  the  Senate 
amendment  was  unnecessary. 

Thus  the  several  questions  were  discussed,  and  particularly  in 
the  House. 

ACTION   ON   REPORT  JUNE   12,  1890. 

THE  HOUSE  STANDS  BY  BLAND  AT  FIRST— AFTERWARDS 
DEFEATS  HIS  AMENDMENT. 

The  speaker  announced  at  first: 

"That  the  first  matter  before  the  House  is  the  conference  report 
which  was  under  consideration  yesterday  evening.  The  Clerk  will 
read  the  title  of  the  bill." 

"The  Clerk  read  as  follows: 

"The  Bill  S.  1  to  protect  trade,  etc.  The  question  was  taken  on  the 
adoption  of  the  report;  and  the  speaker  announced  tliat  he  was  in 
doubt  as  to  the  result." 

"Mr.  Stewart.     Division.     The  House  divided  yeas  25,  nays  54. 

"Mr.  Stewart — ^No  quorum  is  present. 

"The  Speaker  (after  counting) — 114  present.     Not  a  quorum. 

"Mr.  Kerr — I  demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

"The  Speaker — The  clerk  reports  116  present — a  quorum. 

"The  Speaker — The  question  recurs  on  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
ference report." 

"The  question  was  taken.  On  a  division  there  were  yeas  12, 
nays  115." 

"So  the  conference  report  was  rejected." — ^(  Record,  21,  p.  5981, 
June  12,  1890.) 

Stewart  (Rep.)  made  a  motion  to  instruct  the  conferees  to 
abandon  the  Bland  amendment  and  ask  the  Senate  to  abandon  its 
amendment  thereto,  and  called  for  the  previous  question. 

Previous  question  ordered — ^Yeas,  110,  nays,  97;  not  voting,  120. 
(21,  Record,  p.  5982.) 

This  cut  off  Mr.  Bland  from  making  any  amendment  or  to  move 
to  instruct  the  conferees  along  his  line. 

Mr.  Bland  said :  There  are  two  questions  embodied  in  the  motion  j 
first,  to  authorize  a  new  conference  which  of  course  we  all  want; 
and  next,  for  instructions,  that  we  do  not  want.      (Rec.  5983.) 

He  did  not  want  the  second  conferees  instructed  to  abandon  his 
amendment  which  made  the  law  plain  as  applying  to  beef  trusts 
and  railroad  combinations. 


PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.      213 

Mr.  Stewart  then  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  and  his  motion 
was  adopted:  Yeas,  106;  nays,  98;  not  voting,  123,  "so  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Vermont,  was  agreed  to."  (June  12, 
1890.)  The  House  conferees  were  thus  instructed  to  kill  the 
Bland  amendment  and  the  Senate  amendment  thereto.  And  on 
June  20th,  the  conferees — Senator  Vest  dissenting — insisting  on 
the  Bland  amendment — reported: 

"That  both  houses  recede  from  their  respective  amendments." 
The  conference  report  being  submitted,  this  occurred: 

Mr.  Bland — ^Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  raise  the  question  of  consideration, 
in  order  to  go  to  the  Speaker's  table  and  take  up  the  silver  bill. 

Mr.  Stewart — On  that  question  I  demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  Speaker — The  question  is:  Will  the  House  now  consider  the 
conference  report  ? 

And  on  that,  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  demanded  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

The  question  was  taken — ^yeas,  144;  nays,  103;  not  voting,  80. 
So  the  House  determined  to  consider  the  conference  report,  which 
was  done. 

Mr.  Culberson  stated  that  he  signed  this  conference  report  be- 
cause the  House  had  instructed  him  to  do  so. 

"Individually,  I  thought,  the  amendment  originally  made  by  the 
House  was  desirable,  but  the  House  having  instructed  otherwise,  I 
agree  to  this  report  in  accordance  with  that  instruction." 

Mr.  Bland — "I  regret  that  the  amendment  that  the  House  put  upon 
the  bill  was  stricken  out;  and  while  I  fear  the  bill  in  its  present 
shape  is  not  what  its  friends  expect  of  it,  I  shall  cheerfully  vote  for 
it.  I  raise  the  question  of  consideration  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
going  to  the  Speaker's  table  and  taking  up  the  silver  bill.  I  am  not 
opposed  to  the  bill  itself." 

On  the  adoption  of  that  report  and  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  it 
left  the  Senate  the  vote  was — ^yeas,  242;  nays,  0;  not  voting,  85, 
as  follows: 


HOUSE   VOTE   ON    PASSAGE   OF   ANTI-TRUST   ACT   OF 
JULY  2,  1890. 


^EAS— 242. 

Abbott 

Cheadle 

Haugen 

Moore,  Tex. 

Adams 

Chipman 

Hayes 

Morey 

Alderson 

Clements 

Haynes 

Morrill 

Allen,  Mich. 

Clunie 

Heard 

Morrow 

Anderson, 

Kan. 

Cobb 

Hemphill 

Morse 

Anderson, 

Miss. 

Cogswell 

Henderson, 

HI 

.     Mudd 

Arnold 

Comstrock 

Henderson, 

Iowa  Niedringhaus 

Atkinson, 

W. 

Va.  Conger 

Henderson, 

N. 

C.  Norton 

Baker 

Cooper,  Ind. 

Herbert 

Gates 

Bankhead 

Cothran 

Hermann 

O'Nell,  Ind. 

Banks 

Cowles 

Hill 

O'Neil,  Mass. 

Barnes 

Grain 

Hitt 

O'Nell,    Pa. 

Bartine 

Crips 

Holman 

Osborne 

Beckwith 

Culberson,  Tex. 

,     Kelley 

Owen,  Ind. 

Belden 

Culberson,  Pa. 

Kennedy 

Owens,  Ohio 

Belknap 

Cummings 

Kerr,  Iowa 

Parrett 

Bergen 

Cutcheon 

Ketcham 

Paynter 

Bingham 

Dalzell 

Kllgore 

Payson 

Blanchard 

Davidson 

Kinsey 

Peel 

Bland 

De  Lano 

Knapp 

Penlnrtou 

214      PARTY  HISTORY  ON  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS. 


Bliss 

Dockery 

Lacey 

Perkins 

Boatner 

Dolliver 

La  Follette 

Perry 

Boothman 

Bunnell 

Laidlaw 

Pickler 

Boutelle 

Dunphy 

Lane 

Post 

Bowden 

Elliott 

Lanham 

Pugsley 

Breckinridge,  ArkEllIs 

Laws 

Quinn 

Breckinridge,  Ky  Enloe 

Lee 

Raines 

Brewer 

Evans 

Lehlbach 

Reed,  Iowa 

Brlckner 

Ewart 

Lester,  Ga. 

Reilly 

Brookshire 

Farquhar 

Lester,  Va. 

Richardson 

Broslus 

Finley 

Lewis 

Rife 

Brown,  J.  B. 

Fithian 

Lind 

Robertson 

Browne,  Va. 

Flick 

Lodge 

Rockwell 

Brunner 

Flood 

Magner 

Rowell 

Buchanan,  N.  J 

.  Forman 

Malsh 

Rowland 

Buchanan,  Va. 

Forney 

Mansur 

Rush 

Buckalew 

Fowler 

Martin,  Ind. 

Russell 

Bullock 

Frank 

McAdoo 

Sanford 

Bunn 

Funston 

McClammy 

Sayers 

Burrows 

Gear 

McClellan 

Scull 

Burton 

Geissenhainer 

McComas 

Sherman 

Butterworth 

Gest 

McCormick 

Shively 

Bynum 

Gibson 

McCreary 

Simonds 

Caldwell 

Gifford 

McKenna 

Smith,   111. 

Campbell 

Goodnight 

McKinely 

Smith,  W.  Va. 

Candler,  Mass. 

Greenhalge 

McMillin 

Smyser 

Cannon 

Grimes 

Mcllae 

Snider 

Carlton 

Grosvenor 

Miles 

Spinola 

Carter 

Hall 

Mills 

Spooner 

Caruth 

Hansbrough 

Moffltt 

Springer 

Caswell 

Hare 

Montgomery 

Wike 

Stephenson 

Sweeney 

Vandever 

Wilkinson 

Stewart,  Ga. 

Tarsney 

Vaux 

Wilcox 

Stewart,  Tex. 

Taylor,  J.  D. 

Venable 

Williams,  111. 

Stewart,  Vt. 

Thomas 

Walker,  Mass. 

Williams,  0. 

Stivers 

Tillman 

Wallace,  N.  Y. 

Wilson,  Ky. 

Stockdale 

Townsend,  Col. 

Wheeler,  Ala. 

Wilson,  Mo. 

Stone,  Ky. 

Tracey 

Whiting 

Wilson,  W.  Va. 

Stone,  Mo. 

Tucker 

Whitthorne 

Wright 

Strubble 

Turney,  Ga. 

Wickham 

» 

Stump 

Turner,  Kan. 

Moore,  N.  H. 
Nay— 0. 

Not  Voting— 85. 

Allen,  Miss. 

DeHaven 

Milliken 

Stockbridge 

Andrew 

Dibble 

Morgan 

Taylor,  E.  B. 

Atkinson,  Pa. 

Dingley 

Mutchler 

Taylor,   111. 

Barwig 

Dorsey 

Nute 

Taylor,  Tenn. 

Bayne 

Edmunds 

O'jjonnell 

Thompson 

Biggs 

Featherstone 

O'Ferrall 

Townsend,  Pa. 

Blount 

Fitch 

Outhwaite 

Turner,   N.   Y. 

Brower 

Flower 

Payne 

Van  Schaick 

Browne,  T.  M. 

Grout 

Peters 

Waddill 

Candler,  Ga. 

Harmer 

Phelan 

Wade 

Catchings 

Hatch 

Pierce 

Walker,  Mo. 

Cheatham 

Hooker 

Price 

Wallace,  Mass. 

Clancy 

Hopkins 

Quackenbnsh 

Washington 

Clark,  Wis. 

Houk 

Randall 

Watson 

Clarke,  Ala. 

Kerr,  Pa. 

Ray 

Wheeler,  Mich. 

Coleman 

Lansing 

Reyburn 

Wiley 

Connell 

Lawler 

Rogers 

AVilson.  Wash. 

Cooper,  Ohio 

Martin,  Tex. 

Sawyer 

Yardley 

(21,  Record,  p.  6314.) 


PARTY  HISTORY  OK  MONOPOLIES  AND  TRUSTS.      215 

In  the  face  of  this  vote — in  the  face  of  the  official  facts,  that 
the  Democrats  first  started  the  fight  against  the  trusts,  and  first 
suggested  federal  legislation  against  them,  and  based  their  bills 
on  the  commerce  clause,  with  civil  and  criminal  sections,  made 
the  first  and  only  report  on  trusts,  aided  in  framing  the  bill  that 
became  the  law,  and  first  suggested  the  basis  for  its  frame  work, 
and  aided  from  first  to  last  to  frame  and  pass  the  existing  law, 
and  offered  the  Bland  amendment,  which  broadened  it,  agreed  to 
at  first  by  both  parties  in  the  House — in  face  of  these  and  other 
facts  heretofore  stated,  it  is  now  charged  the  Democrats  tried  to 
defeat  this  legislation  on  June  20th,  1890,  when  Mr.  Bland  raised 
the  question  of  consideration  of  the  conference  report,  that  com- 
pletely destroyed  the  Bland  amendment,  and  left  the  bill  in  great 
doubt  as  to  its  meaning  and  as  to  its  application  to  railroads  and 
to  the  Beef  Trust,  Today  we  have  the  Supreme  Court  split  up 
on  the  application  or  non-application  of  this  law  to  railroads. 
We  still  have  the  Beef  Trust,  the  Standard  Oil  Trust,  the  Cotton 
Bagging  Trust  and  the  Whiskey  Trust  in  existence  before  and  at 
the  time  when  this  act  of  1890  was  passed,  all  which  would  have 
been  covered,  if  the  law  had  been  made  plain  by  the 
Bland  amendment,  but  which  the  Republicans  defeated,  thus, 
indirectly  aiding  railroad  combinations,  the  Beef  Trust  and  their 
kind  to  rob  the  people. 


216  INJUNCTION  SUITS. 


INJUNCTION   SUITS,  CRIMINAL  PROSECUTIONS  AND 
HABEAS  CORPUS  PROCEEDINGS  BY  THE  DEFEND- 
ANTS THEREBY  INDICTED,  INSTITUTED  DURING 
THE   HARRISON  ADMINISTRATION   UNDER 
THE  ANTI-TRUST  ACT  OF  1890. 

Hon.  W.  H.  H.  Miller,  Attorney^General,  March  5,  1889  to  March 
6,  1892. 

Out  of  eight  opinions  rendered  by  the  Federal  Court  during 
the  Harrison  administration  or'^defore  Cleveland's  terni  began, 
March  4,  1893,  seven  were  adverse  to  the  Government,  one  in 
equity  and  six  indictments,  fivqof  which  were  quashed  and  five 
defendants  released  and  in  the.  sixth  demurrers  were  sustained 
to  fourteen  out  of  eighteen  counts,  with  leave  granted  to  file 
"special  demurrers,"  and  finally  that  case  was  abandoned  during 
Cleveland's  term.  Not  a  single  indictment  filed  during  the 
Harrison  administration  reached  a  trial  on  the  facts. 

Here  is  a  list  of  the  cases  and  the  decisions  of  the  courts 
rendered  during  the  Harrison  administration  before  or  March  4, 
1893,  when  Cleveland's  second  term  began. 

U.    S.   vs.   Jellico   Coal    Co.      Coal    Combination   in   Tennessee    and 

Kentucky. 

Bill  filed  September  25,  1890.  Preliminaiy  injunction  refused  Oc- 
tober 13,  1890,  43  Fed  Kept.  898,  Hammond,  J.  Injunction  granted 
June  4,  1891,  46  Fed.  Kept.  432,  D.  M.  Key,  J. 

No  appeal  taken. 

WHISKY  TRUST  CASES. 
GOVERNMENT   LOSES   EACH   AND  EVERY  CASE. 

U.  S.  vs.  Greenhut  and  others. 

Indictment  May  1,  1892,  quashed  May  16,  1892.  50th  Kept.  P.  469, 
Nelson,  J. 
In  re  Corning  (a). 

Indictment  quashed  June  11,  1892.    51  Fed.  Rept.  P.  205,  Ricks,  J. 
In  re  Terrell  (a). 

Indictment  quashed  in  habeas  corpus  June  28,  1892.   51  Fed.  Rept. 
P.  213,  Lacombe,  J. 
In  re  Greene  ( a ) . 

Indictment  quashed  August  4,  1892.    52  Fed.  Rept.  P.  104,  Jackson, 
C.  J. —  (afterwards  member  of  Federal  Supreme  Court). 
U.  S.  vs.  Nelson. 

Indictment  (Lumber  Trust)  1892.  Demurrer  to  all  counts  sus- 
tained.    52  Fed.  Rept.  646,  October  10,  1892,  Nelson  J. 

(a)  The  Attorney-General  omitted  to  mention  in  his  recent  report 
to  Congress  Sen.  Doc.  526  of  the  Corning,  Terrell  and  Greene  cases — 
defendants  indicted  under  the  anti-trust  law  of  July  2,  1890. 

CASH   REGISTER  CASE. 

U.  S.  vs.  Patterson. 

Indictment,  18.  counts.    Demurrer  sustained  as  to  all  counts,  except 
4,  9,  14  and  18,  with  leave  to  file  "special  demurrer."    55  Fed.  Rept. 
605,  February  28,  1893,  Putnam,  J. 
U.  S.  vs.  Knight  (-Sugar  Trust  Case). 

Injunction  bill  filed  May  2,  1892. 


INJUNCTION  SUITS.  217 

LABOR  COMBINATION. 

U.  S.  vs.  Workingmen's  Amalgamated  Council  of  New  Orleans. 
Bill  filed  November  10,  1892. 

RAILROAD  COMBINATION. 

U.  S.  vs.  Trans-Missouri  Freight  Association. 

Injunction  bill  filed  January  6,  1892.     Bill  dismissed  November  28, 

1892,  the  Federal  Court  (Rmer,  J.)  holding  the  anti-trust  act  of  July 
2,  1890,  did  not  apply  to  railroads  or  railroad  combinations, 
SUMMARY: 

4  Equity  cases  filed. 

1  Injunction  granted.    Jellico  Case.    No  appeal. 
1  Injunction  refused.    Bill  dismissed.    Railroad  combination. 
1  Not  tried.     (Sugar  Trust  Case.) 

1  Not  decided.  Possibly  being  considered  by  the  Court  (before 
March  4,  1893),  as  the  case  was  decided  soon  thereafter — March  25, 

1893,  granting  an  injunction  against  Workingmen's  etc.  Council. 

(54  Fed.  Rept.  994.    Affirmed  June  13,  1893,  57  Fed.  Rept.  85.) 

5  Indictments  quashed  and  defendants  released. 

1  Indictment  (Cash  Register  case).  Demurrer  sustained  as  to  14 
out  of  18  counts,  with  leave  to  file  "special  demurrers" — February 
28,  1893.    Pending. 

Total  cases  pending  March  4,  1893,  and  inherited  by  Cleveland  ad- 
ministration, 3  in  equity  and  1  indictment,  afterwards  abandoned. 

It  is  perfectly  plain  from  these  indisputable  facts,  that  the 
Harrison  administration  signally  failed  to  successfully  enforce 
the  Sherman  anti-trust  law. 

Not  a  single  indictment  stood  the  test  of  habeas  corpus  proceed- 
ings or  of  demurrer  (except  one,  partially,  Cash  Register  case), 
before  the  Cleveland  administration.  In  this  case,  June,  1893 
(59th  Fed.  Rept.  280)  on  rehearing,  the  general  demurrer  and 
the  special  demurrer,  allowed  February  28,  1893,  were  overruled 
and  answer  required.  This  is  the  last  published  report  of  this 
case. 

Attorney-General  Moody  states  that  this  case  "was  allowed  to 
lapse  because  of  the  consolidation  of  the  complaining  witness 
with  defendants,  said  witness  being  in  possession  of  the  evidence 
relied  on."  It  never  reached  a  trial  on  the  facts,  nor  did  any 
other  indictment  found  during  the  Harrison  administration. 

Not  a  single  case,  under  the  Harrison  administration  had  been 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court,  although  the  law  had  been  enacted 
over  two  years  and  seven  months,  before  the  Cleveland  term 
began  March  4,  1893.  As  yet,  no  one  knew  what  construction 
that  court  of  last  resort  would  put  on  the  law  in  either  equity  or 
criminal  cases. 

The  District  Court  (Riner,  J.)  had  held  the  law  did  not  apply 
to  railroads  or  railroad  combinations — a  very  important  case  and 
decision — while  four  or  five  Federal  judges  had  quashed  the 
different  indictments  found  as  "insufficient"  and  otherwise  fatally 
defective,  each  judge  in  his  construction  of  the  law  differing, 
more  or  less,  with  the  other  judges. 


218  INJUNCTION  SUITS. 


INCOMPETENT      COUNSEL      FOR      GOVERNMENT— UNDER 
HARRISON  ADMINISTRATION. 

In  the  Greenhut  case,  Nelson,  J.,  said: 

"The  indictment  in  this  particular  (having  stated  it)  is  clearly  in- 
sufficient, according  to  the  elementary  rules  of  criminal  pleading  and 
charges  no  offense  within  the  second  section  of  the  statute.'*  Indict- 
ment quashed. 

In  the  lumber  trust  case,  the  court  said  the  indictment  failed 
to  state  "  the  facts  constituting  the  offense."    Case  dismissed. 

"With  more  than  six,  nearly  seven,  cases  out  of  eight,  decided 
against  the  Government,  with  the  Supreme  Court  yet  to  construe 
the  meaning  of  the  law,  the  Cleveland  administration  must  have 
been  naturally  and  inevitably  much  embarrassed  in  knowing  how 
to  successfully  proceed  under  this  trust  law,  and  particularly  in 
new  cases,  equity  or  criminal. 

Thus  confronted,  the  Attorney-General  proceeded,  in  due  course, 
to  get  the  Supreme  Court  to  construe  the  law.  The  all-important, 
old  and  pending  sugar  trust  and  railroad  cases,  which  had  been 
filed  by  Attorney-General  Miller  were  carried  to  the  higher  court. 

SUGAR  TRUST  CASE. 

The  bill  in  the  sugar  trust  case  was  dismissed  by  every  court 
that  tried  it,  as  the  offici.al  reports  of  the  case  show: 

U.  S.  vs.  Knight  (Sugar  Trust). 

Injunction  bill  filed  May  2,  1892.  (Harrison  administration.)  Bill 
dismissed  January  30,  1894.  Butler,  J.  Decree  affirmed  by  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals  (Atcheson,  Dallas  and  Greene,  J  J.,  March  25,  1894). 
Judgment  affirmed  by  Federal  Supreme  Court  January  21,  1895,  156 
U.  S.  Rept.  P.  1.    Harlan,  J.,  dissenting. 

The  cause  of  this  unhappy  result  in  this  case  is  thus  explained 
by  ex-Senator  Edmunds: 

"If  the  famous  Knight  case  had  been  instituted  and  carried  forward 
with  suitable  allegations  of  the  precise  nature  and  history  of  the 
Knight  affair,  and  had  been  supported,  as  it  could  have  been,  by  ade- 
quate proof  of  the  facts  it  set  forth,  I  believe  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  would  not  have  had  the  least  difficulty  in  prevent- 
ing the  carrying  on  of  the  combination  under  consideration,  and  put- 
ting an  end  to  it,  as  it  can  still  do  with  similar  ones.  The  bill  of  com- 
plaint in  the  case  was  unhappily  not  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  to  pre- 
sent the  question  which  now  so  much  commands  just  public  concern. 
What  is  needed  is  not  so  much  more  legislation  as  competent  and 
earnest  administration  of  the  laws  that  exist." — (Senator  Edmunds' 
letter,  June  2,  1903,  to  Mr.  John  A.  Scheicher,  110  Fifth  Avenue, 
New  York,  N.  Y.) 

Senator  Edmunds,  as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, aided  in  the  preparation  of  and  reported  in  1890  the  anti- 
trust act  of  July  2,  1890,  the  so-called  Sherman  law. 

The  criticism  of  Judge  Edmunds,  of  the  Attorney-General  (Hon. 
W.  H.  H.  Miller)  under  the  Harrison  administration,  is  in  keep- 
ing with  and   supported  by  the   remarks   of  the  court  in  the 


INJUNCTION  8UIT8.  219 

Greenhut  and  Nelson  cases,  already  quoted.  But  whether  Judge 
Edmunds  is  correct  in  his  criticism  or  not,  the  fact  remains  that 
the  unfortunate  results  finally  had  in  the  sugar  trust  case  did 
more  to  mystify  the  meaning  and  application  of  the  anti-trust 
law  of  July  2,  1890,  and  block  its  enforcement  than  any  decision 
rendered  under  that  statute.  But  the  Democratic  administration 
did  not  remain  idle  in  these  cases  and  was  not  deterred  by  the 
resulting  adverse  and  discouraging  conditions  surrounding  the 
administration  or  meaning  of  this  law. 

Attorney-General  Harmon  (Cleveland  administration)  next 
pressed  the  Trans-Missouri  (Railroad  Combination)  case  to  the 
higher  courts,  with  the  following  results: 

U.  S.  VS.  TRANS-MISSOURI    FREIGHT  ASSOCIATION. 

Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  (Sanborn  and  Thayer,  Sharis,  dissenting), 
October  2,  1893,  affirmed  the  decision  of  Judge  Riner  (November  28, 
1892),  construing  the  Sherman  Anti-trust  law  as  not  applicable  to 
railroads.  An  appeal  was  taken  and  the  case  argued  December  8  and 
9,  1896,  by  Attorney-General  Harmon  in  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
March  22,  1897,  that  Court  (Fuller,  Peckham,  Harlan,  Brown  and 
Brewer)  reversed  the  decisions  of  the  lower  courts  (Sharis,  Fields, 
White,  Gray,  dissenting),  and  held  that  the  law  did  apply  to  railroads 
and  railroad  combinations,  and  perpetually  enjoined  the  defendants. 

Previous  to  the  trial  in  this  case  the  Supreme  Court,  this  combina- 
tion had  voluntarily  dissolved,  and  for  that  reason  defendants  in- 
sisted in  the  Supreme  Court,  that  the  bill  should  be  dismissed,  thus 
raising  an  important  jurisdictional  question.  But  the  Court  repudi- 
ated this  contention  and  enjoined  the  defendants  from  forming  future 
combinations  contrary  to  the  statute. 

Thus,  two  important  questions  under  the  Anti-Trust  law  were,  for 
the  first  time,  settled  in  this  case,  to  wit: 

First,    That  the  law  applied  to  railroads  and  railroad  combinations. 

Second,  That  jurisdiction  is  not  lost  in  such  cases,  although  the  un- 
lawful combination  assailed  dissolves  before  the  trial  in  the  Supreme 
Court. 

This  is  the  first  case  won  in  the  Supreme  Court  hy  the  Govern- 
ment under  this  law.  It  was  the  first  construction  of  the  law  hy 
this  court  holding  that  the  law  applied  to  railroads.  It  is  the 
leading  case  and  has  since  been  followed  lyy  the  Supreme  Court 
and  of  course  hy  the  lower  courts. 

This  was  also  a  great  victory  for  Judge  Harmon,  the  Cleveland 
administration  and  the  people. 

Since  the  Supreme  Court  had  only  by  a  bare  majority  (5  to  4) 
and  also  by  reversing  the  District  Court  and  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Appeals  held  that  this  trust  law  did  apply  to  common  carriers, 
the  railroads  in  New  York  formed  another  railroad  combination, 
"the  Joint  Traffic  Association,"  and  it  is  said,  by  high  authority, 
they  did  so  for  the  sole  purpose  of  trying  to  get  the  Supreme 
Court  to  reverse  its  construction  of  the  law  in  the  Trans-Missouri 
case,  holding  this  law  applied  to  railroads. 

As  soon  as  this  New  York  Association  was  formed.  Judge 
Harmon  promptly  (January  8,  1896)  filed  an  injunction  bill 
against  it.  Both  the  lower  federal  courts  dismissed  the  bill.  An 
appeal  was  taken  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
reversed  the  lower  courts  and  reaffirmed,  October  24,  1898,  its 
former  construction   of  the   law  and   enjoined   and   presumably 


220  INJUNCTION  8UIT8. 


broke  up  this,  a  second,  railroad  combination.  But  the  Supreme 
Court  in  this  decision  was  again  divided,  this  time  5  to  3,  Mr. 
Justice  McKenna  (who  had  succeeded  Judge  Gray)  not  sitting. 

PIPE  TRUST  CASE   FILED. 

Judge  Harmon  filed,  December  10,  1896,  an  injunction  bill 
against  a  huge  pipe  trust  in  Tennessee.  The  District  Court  dis- 
missed the  bill,  but  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  reversed  this 
decision,  finding  a  trust  existed  and  holding  the  law  applied  also 
to  industrial  combinations.  This  judgment  was  affirmed  Decem- 
ber 4,  1899,  by  the  Supreme  Court,  all  the  judges  agreeing,  except 
Judge  Harlan,  who  dissented  on  one  point. 

Judge  Peckham  wrote  the  opinion  of  the  court  in  the  Trans- 
Missouri,  Joint  Traffic  and  Pipe  cases.  In  the  Pipe  case,  the 
court  cited  the  Missouri  and  Joint  Traffic  cases  and  reaprmed  the 
construction  of  the  law  given  in  those  cases.  These  three  cases 
were  also  cited  in  the  recent  Merger  case — a  railroad  combina- 
tion— and  the  construction  of  the  law  made  in  these  three  cases 
was  again  reannounced  and  followed — but  again  by  a  5  to  4 
decision. 

Attorney-General  Harmon  was  most  fortunate  in  instituting  the 
pipe  trust  case,  for  more  reasons  than  one. 

In  that  case  the  court  explained  the  unfortunate  sugar  trust 
case  decision,  as  holding  that,  Congress  could  not  control  (under 
the  Commerce  Clause)  the  pure  and  simple  "manufacture"  of 
products,  thus  opening  the  way  around  that  decision,  for  the 
vigorous  enforcement  of  this  law. 

The  court  in  the  Pipe  case  (December,  1890)  held  that  Congress 
could  and  Congress  had  in  the  trust  law  of  1890  "prohibited" 
"every"  contract,  agreement,  combination  or  monopoly  which 
even  tended  directly  to  restrain  interstate  or  foreign  commerce. 
The  opinion  was  sweeping,  clear  and  clean  cut. 

HENCEFORWARD,  THE  TRUST  ACT  OF  JULY,  1890,  IS 
PERFECTLY  CLEAR  AS  APPLYING  TO  INDUSTRIAL  COM- 
BINATIONS. HENCEFORWARD,  NO  EXCUSE  FOR  LACK  OF 
KNOWLEDGE  ABOUT  WHAT  THE  LAW  DID.  THE  COURTS, 
BY  CONSTRUCTION,  HAVE  SETTLED  THAT.  IT  APPLIES 
TO  BOTH  COMMON  CARRIERS  AND  INDUSTRIAL  COMBI- 
NATIONS. 

The  Trans-Missouri  case  (a  railroad  combination)  was  begun 
in  the  Harrison  and  ended  in  the  Cleveland  administration.  The 
Joint  Traffic  (railroad  combination)  and  pipe  (industrial  com- 
bination) cases  were  begun  in  the  Cleveland  and  finally  decided 
in  the  McKinley  administration.  Hence,  neither  the  McKinley 
or  Roosevelt  administrations  are  to  be  excused  for  failing  to 
repress  trusts  outlawed  by  this  statute.  The  way  and  law  are 
clear. 

With  the  law  now  settled  as  to  railroad  and  industrial  combina- 
tions, the  Department  of  Justice  complained  about  the  lack  of 
money,  officers,  agents  and  machinery  to  execute  the  law.  Con- 
gress supplied  all  this  over  three  years  ago.  Judge  Bartlett 
(Democrat)  on  the  floor  of  the  House  was  first  to  propose  an 
amendment  to  an  appropriation  bill — reported  by  the  Republicans 


INJUNCTION  8UIT8.  221 

without  such  an  appropriation — 'giving  the  Department  of  Justice 
$250,000  to  be  exclusively  used  by  that  Department  in  executing 
this  law.  Whereupon  Mr.  Hepburn  (Republican)  breaking 
silence,  promptly  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  Bartlett  amend- 
ment by  appropriating  $500,000,  which  was  immediately  done, 
and  the  cash  made  available. 

This  proved  to  be  more  money  than  the  Department  could  use 
or  did  use  in  the  manner  it  executed  the  law.  Congress,  therefore, 
diverted  a  part  of  this  fund  to  the  use  of  the  Interstate  Com- 
mission. 

Attorney-General  Knox  used  a  large  amount  of  it  to  rush 
through  to  the  Supreme  Court  the  Merger  case.  He  had  it 
appealed  and  filed  in  that  Court  by  May  11,  1903.  On  May  18, 
1903,  he  filed  a  petition  and  asked  the  court  to  advance  this  case 
on  the  docket  because  of  "preeminent  public  importance"  and  it 
was  set  for  hearing  December  14-15,  1903.  It  was  then  heard  and 
shortly  thereafter  decided,  and  the  defendant  railroad  combina- 
tion was  enjoined,  but  the  defendant — millionaires — were  never 
indicted,  yet  the  Democrats  insisted  that  they  be  treated  like  any 
other  law  defying  persons — indicted. 

But  Mr.  Knox  left  the  beef  trust  case  behind.  It  dragged  its 
weary  way  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  that  Court  affirmed  the 
lower  court  enjoining  this  trust.  But  the  beef  trust  disobeyed 
the  injunction — as  expected. 

The  Democrats  demanded  that  it  and  its  members  be  indicted. 
They  were  indicted,  hut  the  case  was  not  tried  on  its  merits.  It 
was  tried  on  the  pleadings,  and  the  members  of  this  trust  were 
acquitted  and  discharged  by  the  court — given  an  "immunity 
bath."  The  defendant  corporation  only  was  fined,  the  Court  held 
that  a  corporation  could  not  claim  immunity  under  the  statute, 
following  a  recent  decision  in  the  tobacco  trust  case.  The  tobacco 
case  grew  out  of  investigations  begun  by  the  tobacco  growers  of 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky  and  their  friends,  who  appealed  to  the 
Department  of  Justice  over  two  years  ago — ^when  Mr.  Knox  was 
Attorney-General — to  investigate  this  trust,  which  Mr.  Knox  did 
not  do,  but  which  Attorney-General  Moody  did  do,  with  the  result 
that  a  branch  of  the  tobacco  trust  was  indicted  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  other  proceedings  are  being  had  to  overcome  and  break 
up  this  trust. 

It  is  true  that  the  Roosevelt  administration,  more  than  any 
other,  has  enforced  the  anti-trust  law,  but  this  has  been  done 
during  the  administration  of  Attorney-General  Moody  and  not 
when  Mr.  Knox  was  Attorney-General,  and  after  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
administration  had  been  fully  and  perfectly  equipped  by  Congress 
to  execute  the  law — previous  administrations  had  not  been. 

Complying  with  the  imperative  demand  of  the  people  and  the 
ancient  and  continuous  entreaties  of  the  Democrats  in  Congress — 
as  the  Record  will  show — the  second  Roosevelt  administration 
has  insisted  on  and  has  caused  indictments  to  be  found  against 
certain  trusts,  but  the  administration,  it  is  recently  reported, 
proposes  to  fine  the  guilty  corporations  (which  cannot  be  impris- 
oned) while  the  lawless  individuals,  members  of  the  trusts,  who 
can  be  both  fined  and  imprisoned,  are  to  be  only  fined.    These 


222  INJUNCTION  8UITS. 


creatures  are  to  go  free,  who  have  so  long  defied  the  law,  disobeyed 
injunctions,  put  up  prices  on  the  defenseless  people,  restricted 
their  liberties  and  dealt  out  to  the  people  just  so  much  to  eat  and 
so  much  to  wear,  at  the  trust-fixed  price. 

The  Democrats  demand,  and  the  people  expect,  that  every  man, 
whether  rich  or  poor,-  who  disobeys  this  trust  law,  shall  be  fined 
and  imprisoned.  The  Democrats  were  first  to  suggest  a  criminal 
section  to  this  law.  They  have  from  first  to  last  demanded  that 
both  the  equity  and  criminal  sections  be  enforced  and  particularly 
the  criminal  section.  An  injunction  can  be  and  is  disobeyed. 
But  the  prison  cells  around  the  guilty  man  compels  obedience 
and  prevents  him  for  the  time  being  from  continuing  this  career 
as  an  outlaw  on  the  outside  of  the  prison. 

The  law  was  new  and  undefined  during  the  Harrison  adminis- 
tration. That  administration  had  no  special  fund  for  officers  or 
agents,  etc.,  to  enforce  the  law.  The  law  was  not  only  new  and 
undefined  when  the  Cleveland  administration  began  as  shown,  but 
the  decisions  of  the  lower  courts,  and  particularly  the  decision 
in  the  Greene  case  by  Circuit  Judge  Jackson  and  the  railroad  case 
by  Riner,  J.,  had  been  against  the  Government. 

The  Cleveland  administration  had  no  special  fund,  officers,  etc., 
to  enforce  the  law.  But,  as  shown,  the  Democrats  had  the 
Supreme  Court  to  define  the  law  in  the  two  railroad  cases  and 
the  pipe  case,  and  also  filed  other  suits  unnecessary  to  mention 
here. 

Under  the  McKinley  administration  the  way  was  clear.  The 
law  was  well  understood  after  the  pipe  case — 1897.  The  law  of 
course  has  been  fully  understood  during  the  Roosevelt  adminis- 
trations, because  of  these  and  other  decisions  previous  to  his  term. 
And  in  addition  to  this,  all  the  money  and  machinery  that  the 
Department  of  Justice  called  for  was  given  to  the  Roosevelt 
administration  to  enforce  the  law,  which  in  the  meantime  was 
"broadened  and  otherwise  made  more  drastic  and  powerful. 

There  is  absolutely  no  excuse  for  not,  long  before  this,  wiping 
out  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  more  lawless  trusts  that  were 
several  years  ago  shown  officially  to  be  in  actual  offensive 
existence. 

The  people  and  Democrats  in  Congress  loudly  complained 
against  trusts  and  the  non-enforcement  of  the  trust  laws  by 
Attorney-General  Griggs  during  the  McKinley  administration. 
The  Democrats  demanded  the  execution  of  existing  law,  claiming 
it  was  sufficient  if  vigorously  executed. 

About  this  time  the  New  York  World  addressed  a  letter  on  the 
subject  to  Senator  Sherman  and  on  October  3,  1898,  Mr.  Sherman, 
over  his  own  signature,  replied: 

"The  anti-trust  law  is  valid  and  sufficient.  If  an  attorney-general 
and  court  could  be  brought  to  enforce  it,  relief  to  the  people  would  at 
once  be  had." 

Ex-Senator  Edmunds  spoke  with  great  force  on  the  subject  and 
said  the  existing  law  only  needed  to  be  enforced. 


INJUNCTION  8UIT8.  223 

THE  SHERMAN   BILL  WAS  NOT  PASSED. 

Aiken,  S.  C,  June  2,  1903. 
Deab  Sib: 

Yours  of  the  27th  ult.  has  reached  me  here.  The  statement  of 
Senator  Vest  contained  in  the  slip  you  inclose  is  correct.  I  have  not 
the  Congressional  Record  or  the  Senate  files  to  refer  to,  but  I  am  sure 
on  looking  them  up  you  will  find  that  the  bill  reported  by 
Mr.  Sherman  from  the  Fmance  Committee  was  not  the  one  passed 
by  Congress,  but  that  the  one  passed  by  Congress  was  reported 
by  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  which  tne  Sherman  bill,  after 
it  was  reported  from  tne  Finance  Committee  and  discussed  and 
probably  more  or  less  amended,  was  referred  for  consideration; 
and  that  the  bill  reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  passed 
was,  in  every  essential  respect,  entirely  different  from  the  Sherman 
bill,  and  was  purely  a  substitute  for  it. 

The  Judiciary  Committee  was,  I  think,  unanimously  of  the  opinion 
that  the  bill  it  reported  was,  in  respect  of  its  general  scope,  an  exer- 
cise of  the  whole  constitutional  power  of  Congress,  which  could  only 
legislate  for  the  freedom  and  regulation  of  commerce  with  foreign 
nations  and  among  the  several  states;  and  I  am  of  the  same  opinion 
still. 

ONLY   DIFFICULTY  IS  NON-ENFORCEMENT. 

The  only  difficulty  with  the  bill  we  reported  and  which  became  the 
law,  was  the  want  of  administration — that  is  to  say,  that  the  law 
was  and  is  entirely  capable  of  putting  an  end  to  such  so-called  trusts 
and  such  combinations  as  interfere  with  or  restrain  commerce  among 
the  states,  etc.,  of  the  officers  of  the  Government,  having  charge  of 
the  enforcement  of  law,  understand  their  duty  and  are  willing  to  do 
it,  being,  of  course,  supplied  with  the  sufficient  means  to  put  it  into 
force. 

NEGLIGENCE   OF  ATTORNEY-GENERAL   MILLER   LOST 
SUGAR  TRUST  CASE. 

If  the  famous  Kiiight  case  had  been  instituted  and  carried  forward 
with  suitable  allegations  of  the  precise  nature  and  history  of  the 
Knight  affair,  and  had  been  supported,  as  it  could  have  been,  by 
adequate  proof  of  the  facts  it  set  forth,  I  believe  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  would  not  have  had  the  least  difficulty  in 
preventing  the  carrying  on  of  the  combination  under  consideration, 
and  putting  an  end  to  it,  as  it  can  still  do  with  similar  ones.  The 
bill  of  complaint  in  the  case  was  unhappily  not  drawn  in  such  a  way 
as  to  present  the  question  which  now  so  much  commands  just  public 
concern. 

What  is  needed  is  not,  so  much,  more  legislalipn  as  competent 
and  earnest  administration  of  the'laws  that  exist.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  present  Attorney- General  and  his  very  able  assistant  will 
find  easy  means,  if  supplied  with  the  necessary  funds,  to  arrest  the 
progress  and  undo  the  mischievous  work  of  such  great  and  injurious 
combinations  as  have  so  largely  come  into  existence.  • 
(Signed)   Very  truly  yours, 

Geo.  F.  Edmunds. 
John  A.  Sleicher,  Esq., 

110  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

While  the  Democrats  were  urging  the  enforcement  of  existing 
anti-trust  laws,  both  by  injunction  and  indictment,  the  Republi- 
cans were  keeping  company  with  the  trusts  by  proposing  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  in  effect  delay.  The  Democrats  voted 
against  the  proposed  amendment.  Fifty-seventh  Congress,  because 
unnecessary,    Congress   already   having   sufficient   power.     They 


224  INJUNCTION  SUITS. 

tried  to  amend  but  voted  for  the  Littlefield  anti-trust  bill,  but 
even  this  the  Republican  Senate  filled,  Senators  Hoar  and 
Spooner  vigorously  opposing  it  on  constitutional  and  other 
grounds.  Senator  Jones  (Democrat)  was  defeated  in  his  motion 
to  take  up  and  consider  the  Littlefield  bill;  the  Republicans 
voting  "nay." 

Even  President  Roosevelt  undertook  to  chloroform  public 
opinion  and  defer  the  vigorous  enforcement  of  existing  laws  by 
himself  in  many  speeches,  and  notably  at  Fitchburg,  Mass., 
September  2,  1902,  urging  a  constitutional  amendment,  giving 
Congress  more  power  to  overcome  the  trusts  and  destroy  the 
rights  of  the  states.  As  reported  by  the  Associated  Press,  and 
published  in  the  Chicago  Record  Herald,  September  3,  1902, 
President  Roosevelt  at  Litchfield,  Mass.,  said: 

PRESIDENT    ROOSEVELT    WANTED    TO    AMEND 
THE  CONSTITUTION. 

"I  believe  something  can  be  done  by  national  legislation.  When 
I  state  that  I  ask  you  to  note  my  words,  I  say  I  believe.  It  is  not 
in  my  power  to  say  I  know.  When  I  talk  to  you  of  my  own  executive 
duties  I  can  tell  you  definitely  what  will  and  what  will  not  be  done. 
When  I  speak  of  the  actions  of  anyone  else  I  can  only  say  that  I 
believe  something  more  can  be  done  by  national  legislation.  I 
believe  it  will  be  done.  I  think  we  can  get  laws  which  will  measurably 
increase  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  over  corporations; 
but,  gentlemen,  I  believe  firmly  that  in  the  end  there  will  have  to  be 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  nation  conferring  additional 
power  upon  the  Federal  Government  to  deal  with  corporations.  To 
get  that  will  be  a  matter  of  difficulty  and  a  matter  of  time." 

This,  of  course,  meant  delay,  delay,  delay. 

PROSECUTING    THE    TRUSTS— CORPORATIONS    GET    OFF 
WITH   SMALL   FINES. 

COMMENTS  ON  ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S   REPORT. 

The  report  of  the  Attorney-General  (Senate  Document,  No.  526) 
shows  that  during  Roosevelt's  administration  five  indictments 
have  been  procured  under  the  act  of  July  2,  1890,  the  Sherman 
anti-trust  law.  In  one  of  these  cases,  U.  S.  vs.  Federal  Salt  Com- 
pany, there  was  a  conviction,  and  the  company  was  fined  $1,000. 

In  another  case,  U.  S.  vs.  Armour  &  Co.,  et  al.,  several  corpora- 
tions and  their  agents  and  officers  were  indicted  July  1,  1905. 
The  defendants  interposed  pleas  of  immunity  in  bar,  and  these 
pleas  were  sustained  by  the  court  as  to  the  individual  defendants 
but  overruled  as  to  the  corporations.     (Report,  p.  9.) 

The  case  of  U.  S.  vs.  Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Company,  et 
al.,  is  an  indictment  found  May  25,  1906,  against  31  corporations 
and  25  individuals  engaged  in  the  fertilizer  business  in  the 
Southern  States,  charged  with  conspiracy  to  violate  Section  5440, 
U.  S.  Revised  Statutes  (the  anti-trust  law  of  1890).  It  is  still 
pending.     (Report,  p.  9.) 

An  indictment  was  procured  in  June  last,  against  several  lumber 
companies  for  violation  of  the  same  law,  and  is  still  pending.  No 
individuals  indicted.     Case  still  pending.     (Report,  p.  9.) 


INJUNCTION  SUITS.  225 

In  June  also  an  indictment  was  procured  under  the  same  law 
against  members  of  the  liquorice  division  of  the  tobacco  trust 
(U.  S.  vs.  McAndrews  &  Forbes  Co.,  et  al.)  It  is  still  pending. 
The  tobacco  growers  of  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  nearly  three 
years  since  began  this  investigation. 

Under  the  act  of  1890,  therefore,  there  was  only  one  conviction; 
a  plea  in  bar  has  been  sustained  in  one  case,  and  three  cases  are 
pending,  according  to  Mr.  Moody's  report. 

Two  of  the  injunction  bills  were  filed  in  our  outlying  territory — 
Hawaii  and  Alaska. 

Under  the  act  to  regulate  commerce  (act  of  1887)  as  amended, 
there  have  been  six  indictments,  five  of  which  were  nol-prossed 
and  one  dismissed.     (Report,  p.  19.) 

Under  the  Elkins  act  approved  February  19,  1903,  there  have 
been  11  indictments  for  receiving  rebates;  19  for  granting  rebates; 
5  for  conspiracy  to  obtain  rebates.  This  act  prohibits  imprison- 
ment for  granting  or  receiving  rebates,  but  not  for  conspiracy  to 
violate  that  act  and  the  act  of  1887  to  regulate  commerce.  Only 
the  five  indictments  for  conspiracy,  therefore,  involve  punishment 
by  imprisonment.  These  were  all  for  conspiracy  to  receive 
rebates,  and  were,  of  course,  against  individuals.  In  three  of 
these  cases  there  were  convictions.  In  U.  S.  vs.  Weil,  et.  al.,  the 
defendants  severally  pleaded  guilty  and  were  sentenced  to  pay 
fines  aggregating  $25,000  and  to  imprisonment.  In  U.  S.  vs. 
Thomas  &  Taggart,  defendants,  were  convicted  and  sentenced  to 
fine  and  imprisonment.  In  U.  S.  vs.  Price  &  Wells,  defendants, 
were  convicted  and  fined,  but  not  imprisoned.     (Report,  p.  17.) 


226  THE  PROSECUTION   OF   THE   TRUSTS. 

THE  PROSECUTION  OF  THE  TRUSTS. 

A   RECORD  OF  MASTERLY  INEFFICIENCY. 

On  the  29th  of  June,  1906,  Attorney-General  Moody,  in  com- 
pliance with  a  resolution  of  the  Senate,  submitted  a  statement 
of  all  suits  instituted  by  the  Department  of  Justice  under  the 
Sherman  anti-trust  law,  the  Interstate  Commerce  law  and  the 
so-called  "Elkins  law,"  and  the  disposition  made  of  such  suits,  etc. 
(See  Senate  Document  No.  526, Fifty-ninth  Congress, first  session.) 

This  report  contains  26  pages,  but  on  page  19,  there  is  a  sum- 
mary which  shows  in  a  general  way  what  has  been  accomplished 
with  all  the  fuss  and  expense  attending  the  pretended  prosecution 
of  the  trusts  under  the  act  to  regulate  commerce,  as  amended, 
and  the  Elkins  act. 

"SUMMARY. 
"CASES  UNDER  ACT  TO   REGULATE  COMMERCE. 

"President  Cleveland's  first  Administration,  1885-1889. — One  indict- 
ment for  giving  rebates:     Nol-prossed. 

"President  Harrison's  Administration,  1889-1893. — ^Thirteen  indict- 
ments for  charging  less  than  tariff  rates:  2  convictions  as  to  one 
defendant:  nol-prossed  as  to  others.  In  one  case  defendant  fined 
$3,000;  in  the  other  defendant  fined  $1  and  costs;  7  nol-prossed;  1 
acquittal;  2  quashed;  1  dismissed.  One  indictment  for  prejudice  in 
transporting  goods:  Quashed.  Four  indictments  for  failure  to  post 
tariffs :  2  nol-prossed ;  2  quashed. 

"Two  indictments  for  false  weighing,  2  convictions — defendant  in 
one  case  fined  $100  on  each  count,  in  the  other  two,  defendants  each 
fined  $2,000  and  sentenced  to  prison  for  18  months;  both  pardoned; 
1  indictment  for  selling  tickets  at  less  than  tariff  rates,  acquitted;  2 
indictments  for  false  billing,  1  conviction — defendant  fined  $100;  1 
nol-prossed;  10  indictments  for  inducing  and  conspiring  to  discrimi- 
nate, 6  nol-prossed,  2  acquitted,  2  quashed;  2  indictments  for  giving 
rebates,  1  nol-prossed  as  to  one  defendant,  other  defendant  acquitted, 
1  nol-prossed. 

"Total:  thirty-five  indictments,  5  convictions,  18  nol-prossed,  7 
quashed,  1  dismissed,  4  acquitted. 

"Ten  petitions  to  enforce  orders  of  Commission,  7  dismissed,  1  case 
discontinued,  1  pending,  1  granted;  2  proceedings  to  compel  witness 
to  testify  before  grand  jury  dismissed. 

"President  Cleveland's  second  Administration,  1893-1697. — One 
indictment  for  discrimination  in  sale  of  tickets,  dismissed;  4  indict- 
ments for  charging  less  than  tariff  rates,  1  conviction  as  to  one  and 
nol-prossed  as  to  other  defendant ;  3  convictions,  1  case  defendant  fined 
$1,000;  1  case,  two  defendants  each  fined  $4,000;  1  case  two  defend- 
ants each  fined  $50;  1  case  defendant  fined  costs;  5  indictments  for 
giving  rebates,  3  nol-prossed,  1  acquitted  as  to  one,  nol-prossed  as  to 
other  defendants;  1  conviction,  defendant  fined  $500;  3  indictments 
for  inducing  to  discriminate,  all  quashed;  4  indictments  for  false 
billing,  1  defendant  convicted  and  other  acquitted;  convicted  party 
fined  $350;  3  nol-prossed;  2  indictments  for  issuing  free  passes,  both 
quashed. 

"Total:  Nineteen  indictments,  6  convictions,  1  dismissal,  8  nol- 
prossed,  3  quashed,  1  acquitted. 

"Seventeen  petitions  to  enforce  orders  of  Commission;  11  dismissed, 
3  discontinued,  I  modified  order  of  Commission  complied  with  and 
case  dismissed,  1  order  complied  with  and  case  discontinued,  1  pend- 


THE  PROSECUTION   OF   THE   TRU8T8.  227 

ing.  One  original  petition  to  restrain  defendants  from  making  dis- 
criminatory rates  dismissed;  1  prosecution  for  contempt  to  compel 
witness  to  testify,  defendant  convicted,  application  for  habeas  corpus 
denied;  64  petitions  for  mandamus  to  compel  filing  of  annual  reports; 

2  dismissed,  1  granted,  61  discontinued  because  carriers  agreed  to 
comply. 

"PRESIDENT   McKINLEY'S  ADMINISTRATION,   1897-1901. 
(September  14). 

"Twelve  indictments  for  giving  rebates,  against  same  parties,  not 
prosecuted;  2  indictments  for  departure  from  published  rates;  in  both 
cases  1  defendant  convicted — nol-prossed  as  to  other;  in  both  cases 
fined  $350 ;  3  indictments  for  false  billing,  1  nol-prossed,  1  conviction, 
defendant  fined  $1,000,  1  acquittal;  1  indictment  for  conspiracy,  nol- 
prossed;  1  indictment  for  obstructing  administration  of  act,  convic- 
tion, defendant  fined  $500;  3  indictments  for  false  weighing,  1  con- 
viction as  to  one  defendant,  fined  $1,000,  nol-prossed  as  to  others,  2 
nol-prossed. 

"Total :  Twenty-two  indictments,  5  convictions,  1  acquittal,  4  nol- 
prossed,  12  not  prosecuted;  5  petitions  to  enforce  orders  of  commission, 

3  dismissed,  1  discontinued,  1  granted;  1  petition  to  declare  pooling 
combination  illegal,  granted. 

"PRESIDENT     ROOSEVELT'S     ADMINISTRATION,     SEPTEM- 
BER   14,  1901— JUNE,  1906. 

"Two  indictments  for  charging  less  than  established  rates,  2  nol- 
prossed;  4  indictments  for  pooling,  1  dismissed,  3  nol-prossed. 

"Total,  6  indictments;  5  nol-prossed,  1  dismissed. 

"Eight  petitions  to  enjoin  departure  from  published  rates,  tem- 
porary injunctions  granted  and  answer  filed;  10  petitions  to  enforce 
orders  of  Commission,  1  defendant  complied  and  petition  dismissed, 
3  petitions  dismissed,  2  injunctions  granted,  1  discontinued,  3  pend- 
ing; 3  petitions  to  compel  filing  of  annual  reports,  1  dismissed,  2 
discontinued. 

"CASES   UNDER   ELKINS  ACT. 

"Eleven  indictments  for  receiving  rebates — 5  convictions,  in  one 
case  defendants  fined  $1,025  each,  in  four  cases  defendant  corporation 
fined  $15,000;  1  acquittal,  5  pending;  19  indictments  for  granting 
rebates — 1  conviction,  defendant  corporation  fined  $40,000,  2  indi- 
vidual defendants  fined  $10,000  each,  2  nol-prossed,  16  pending;  5 
indictments  for  conspiring  to  obtain  rebates — 3  convictions,  in  one 
case  defendant  fined  $1,025,  in  one  case  defendant  fined  $6,000  and 
given  6  months  in  jail  and  tne  other  fined  $4,000  and  given  3  months, 
in  one  case  defendants  fined  in  the  aggregate  $25,000,  1  nol-prossed, 
1  acquittal;   1  indictment  for  conspiring  to  grant  rebates,  pending. 

"Total:  36  indictments,  9  convictions,  2  acquittals,  3  nol-prossed, 
22  pending.* 

"Six  petitions  to  enjoin  departure  from  published  rates,  temporary 
injunctions  granted;  1  petition  to  enforce  order  of  commission,  dis- 
missed; 1  petition  to  restrain  railroad  from  giving  preferences  and 
rebates,  granted;  1  petition  to  compel  filing  of  annual  reports,  dis- 
continiied;  2  proceedings  to  require  defendants  to  testify,  both  suc- 
cessful." 

The  Attorney-General's  report  shows  also  that  between  March  17, 
1903,  and  June  28,  1906,  the  work  of  his  office  in  the  special  matter 
of  prosecuting  the  trusts  had  cost  $159,709.66;  and  that  Congress  had 
allowed  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  spend  in  the  same 
matter  the  sum  of  $45,000;  making  in  all  $204,709.66. 


(*These  indictments  were  returned  within  the  last  month  or  two, 
and  the  cases  will  be  shortly  brought  to  trial.) 


228  THE  PROSECUTION   OF   THE   TRUSTS. 

The  Elkins  Act  went  into  effect  February  19,  1903;  and  on  March 
17,  1903,  Congress  appropriated  $500,000  as  a  special  fund  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  anti-trust  laws.  There  had  been  great  trouble 
about  money  for  that  purpose  under  Roosevelt's  predecessors.  But 
since  March,  1903,  there  has  been  no  lack  of  funds — only  full  and 
efficient  action  has  been  lacking. 

Commenting  upon  Mr.  Moody's  report,  the  Providence  Journal,  a 
Republican  newspaper,  says: 

"The  report  of  Attorney-General  Moody,  recently  issued,  covering 
everything  done  up  to  date,  shows  that  the  Roosevelt  administration 
has  a  clean  record  of  failure  in  all  six  of  the  cases  brought  under  the 
interstate  commerce  act,  and  but  three  convictions  imder  the  Elkins 
Act;  and  this  although  a  better  understanding  of  tnese  laws,  due  to 
the  added  length  of  time  they  have  been  on  the  statute  hook,  gives 
less  excuse.  Yet  for  some  reason  the  administration  has  a  record  for 
'doing  things.'  Unfortunately,  many  of  the  'things'  amount  to  nothing 
anyway,  and  might  as  well  be  left  undone  as  to  be  so  badly  attempted. 
The  latest  'fizzle'  is  the  prosecution  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company. 
'After  a  series  of  conferences,'  the  news  reports  say,  the  Attorney- 
General  has  decided  not  to  indict  John  D.  Rockefeller.  He  decides  to 
indict  the  Standard  Oil  Company  as  a  corporation,  out  tne  officials 
of  the  company  are  not  to  be  'inconvenienced.'  He  might  as  well 
indict  the  office  chairs.  The  offenses  charged  against  the  company, 
for  which  they  are  to  be  callfed  upon  to  answer,  seem  almost  ludicrous. 

"In  the  light  of  what  Texas  and  Missouri  and  Kansas  did  when 
they  set  themselves  to  break  up  the  monopoly  which  the  Standard 
Oil  was  building  up  in  their  territory,  it  certainly  seems  as  ii  the 
Federal  Government  could  do  more  than  collect  a  fine.  Yet  Mr. 
Moody  and  the  ^resident  are  content  to  proceed  against  the  trust 
because  of  rebates  received  under  the  form  of  discounted  charges 
from  the  Lake  Shore  Railroad.  If  they  get  a  conviction,  the  only 
punishment  is  a  fine.  And  for  this  they  pose  as  the  stern,  uncom- 
promising foes  of  all  monopolies  and  trusts.  If  the  responsible  heads 
and  owners  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  cannot  be  reached,  brought 
into  court,  compelled  to  plead  to  charges  of  conspiracy  in  restraint 
of  trade,  and  extortion,  ana  take  tneir  chances  of  going  to  jail,  then 
tlie  Federal  Government  snould  let  them  and  their  corporation  alone, 
and  make  it  clear  mat  it  is  powerless  against  them.    For  it  would  be." 

On  page  9  of  Attorney-General  Moody's  report  there  is  also  a 
summary  of  suits  and  prosecutions  instituted  by  the  United  States 
under  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law  of  July  2,  1890,  which  shows 
somewhat  better  results,  but  is  still  discouraging. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL  MOODY'S  SUMMARY. 

President  Harrison's  Administration,  1889-1893. — Four  bills  in 
equity;  3  injunctions  granted;  1  dismissed.  Tnree  indictments;  1 
quashed;  1  demurrer  sustained;  1  discontinued. 

President  Cleveland's  second  Administration,  1893-1897. — Four  bills 
in  equity;  3  injunctions  granted;  1  dismissed.  Two  informations  (for 
contempt  in  violating  injunctions)  :  1  quashed;  1  conviction.  Two 
indictments;  1  quashed;  1  dismissed. 

President  McKinley's  Administration,  1897-1901  (September  14). 
— Three  bills  in  equity;  2  injunctions  granted;  1  dismissed. 

President  Roosevelt's  Administration,  September  14,  1901. — June, 
1906.  Eleven  bills  in  equity;  6  injunctions  granted;  5  pending.  Five 
indictments;  3  pending;  1  conviction;  1  plea  in  bar  sustained.  Two 
proceedings  for  contempt  in  refusing  to  testify  before  grand  jury: 
( 'onvictions. 


WHOLESALE  PRICES  1897-1905. 


WHOLESALE  PRICES  1897-1905. 

FROM  THE  BULLETIN,  MARCH,  1906,  OF  THE  BUREAU  OF 
LABOR,   DEPARTMENT  OF  COMMERCE  AND   LABOR. 


Average 
Year.  price. 

1897  Salt:    American,    per   barrei 66 

1905  Salt :  American,  per  barrel .75 

1897  Sugar  :  granulated,  per  pound 04497 

1905  Sugar  :  granulated,  per  pound ,05256 

CLOTHS  AND  CLOTHING. 

Average 
Year.  price. 

1897  Grain  bags  :  2  bushel,  Amoskeag 1300 

1905  Grain  bags  :  2  bushel,  Amoskeag 1533 

1897  Blankets  :  11-4,  5  lbs.  to  the  pair,  all  wool.  .750 

1905  Blankets:  11-4,  5  lbs.  to  the  pair,  all  wool.        1.000 

1897  Boots  and  Shoes 9500 

1905  Boots  and   Shoes 1.0042 

1897  Carpets  :  Brussels  5-frame,  Bigelow 9600 

1905  Carpets  :  Brussels  5-frame,  Bigelow 1.1520 

1897  Carpets  :  Ingrain  2-ply,  Lowell 4320 

1905  Carpets  :  Ingrain  2  ply,  Lowell 5520 

1897  Cotton  Flannels:  2%  yards  to  the  pound..  .0575 

1905  Cotton  Flannels:  2%  yards  to  the  pound.  .  .0854 

1897  Cotton  thrd. :  6-cd.,  200-yd.  spls.,  J.  &  P.  Cts.  .030503 

1905  Cotton  thrd.  :  6-cd.,  200-yd.  spls.,  J.  &  P.  Cts.          .037240 

1897  Drillings  :  30  inch.  Stark  A 0463 

1905  Drillings  :  30-inch,  Stark  A 0633 

1897  Flannels  :  with  4-4,  Ballard  Vale,  No.  3 3113 

1905  Flannels  :  with  4-4,  Ballard  Vale,  No.  3 4461 

1897  Leather  :  harness,  oak,  country  middles.  . . .  .2433 

1905  Leather  :  harness,  oak,  country  middles .3333 

1897  Leather:    sole,    oak 3079 

1905  Leather  :   sole,   oak 3663 

1897  Overcoatings  :  beaver  ;  Moscow,  all  wool .  .  .        1.7670 

1905  Overcoatings:  beaver;  Moscow,  all  wool...        2.4413 

1897  Horse  Blankets:  6  pounds  each,  all  wool..  .570 

1905  Horse  Blankets:  6  pounds  each,  all  wool..  .750 

1897  Overcoatings:  kersey,  standard,  27  to  28  oz.       1.1833 

1905  Overcoatings  :  kersey,  standard,  27  to  28  oz.       1.8313 

1897  Shawls  :  stand'd,  all  wool,  72x144  in.,  42  oz.       4.0970 

1905  Shawls  :  stand'd,  all  wool,  72x144  in.,  42  oz.       2.2400 

1897  Sheetings  :  bleached,  10-4,  Pepperell 1738 

1905  Sheetings  :  bleached,  10-4,  Pepperell 2267 

1897  Sheetings  :  brown,  4-4,  Atlantic  A 0490 

1905  Sheetings  :  brown,  4-4,  Atlantic  A 0639 

1897  Suitings  :  clay  worsted  diagonal,  12  oz 7337 

1905  Suitings:  clay  worsted  diagonal,  12  oz 1.0931 

1897  Trouserings:  fancy  worsted,  22  to  23  oz.  .  .        1.7955 

1905  Trouserings:  fancy  worsted,  22  to  23  oz.  .  .        2.2331 

1897  Women's  dress  goods:  cashmere,  all  wool, 

Atlantic  J • 2389 

1905  Women's  dress  goods :  cashmere,  all  wool, 

Atlantic  J.  .' 3730 

1897  Petroleum:    crude 7869 

1905  Petroleum:    crude 1.3842 


Relative 

price. 

93.9 

107.2 

95.1 

111.2 


Relative 
price. 

92.9 
109.6 

89.3 
119.0 

96.0 
101.5 

95.29 
115.1 

90.9 
116.2 

81.4 
121.0 

98.4 
120.1 

88.9 
121.5 

82.6 
118.4 

93.9 
115.0 

91.6 
108.9 

84.9 
117.3 

99.5 
130.9 

94.9 
146.8 

89.5 
117.5 

92.3 
120.3 

88.6 
115.6 

89.1 
132.7 

92.3 
111.6 

82.2 

128.4 

86.5 

152.1 


230 


WHOLESALE  PRICES  1897-1905. 


METALS  AND  IMPLEMENTS. 

Average. 
Year.  price. 

1897  Augurs  :  extra  %-inch 1425 

1905  Augurs  :  extra   %-inch 3067 

1897  Axes  :  M.  C.  O.,  Yankee 3938 

1905  Axes  :  M.  C.  O.,  Yankee 6323 

1897  Barb  wire  :  galvanized 1.8000 

1905  Barb  wire :  galvanized 2.3829 

1897  Butts  :  loose  joint,  cast,  3x3  inch 0306 

1905  Butts  :  loose  joint,  cast,  3x3  inch 0400 

1897  Doorknobs  :  steel,  bronze  plated 1660 

1905  Doorknobs  :  steel,  bronze  plated 3625 

1897  Files  :  8-inch  mill  bastard 7775 

1905  Files  :  8  inch  mill  bastard 1.0367 

1897  Locks  :  Common  Mortise 0750 

1905  Locks  :  Common  Mortise 1496 

1897  Nails  :  wire,  8-penny,  fence  and  common . .        1.4854 

1905  Nails:  wire,  8-penny,  fence  and  common..        1.8958 

1897  Wood  screws  :  1-inch,  No.  10,  flat  head.  . . !  .0850 

1905  Wood  screws  :  1-inch,  No.  10,  flat  head 1055 

1897  Zinc:    sheet 4.9400 

1905  Zinc :     sheet 6.8250 

1897  Brick :    common   domestic w4.9375 

1905  Brick  :  common  domestic 8.1042 

1897  Cement :   Rosedale. 7521 

1905  Cement :  Rosedale 8333 

1897  Doors  :    pine 8125 

1905  Doors :   pine 1.8367 

1897  Lime  :    common 7188 

1905  Lime  :    common 8908 

1897  Pine :  white  boards.  No.  2  barn 15.8333 

1905  Pine  :  white  boards,  No.  2  barn. 24.7500 

1897  Linseed   Oil:    raw 3275 

1905  Linseed   Oil :    raw 4675 

1897  Pine :    yellow 16.4375 

1905  Pine:    yellow 24.9167 

1897  Shingles  :  white  pine,  18-inch 3.5417 

1905  Shingles  :  white  pine,  18-inch 3.5000 

1897  Turpentine  :  spirits  of 2743 

1905  Turpentine  :  spirits  of 6276 

1897  Window    glass :     American,    single,    flrsts, 

6x8  to   10x15   inch 2.1986 

1905  Window    glass :     American,    single,    firsts, 

6x8  to  10x15   inch 2.7637 

1897  House     furnishing     goods :     Earthenware : 

plates,  white  granite .3991 

1905  House     furnishing     goods :     Earthenware : 

plates,  white  granite .4586 

1897  Furniture  :  bedroom  sets  ash 8.750 

1905  Furniture :  bedroom  sets  ash 12.354 

1897  Furniture  :  chairs,  bedroom,  maple 5.000 

1905  Furniture :  chairs,  bedroom,  maple 8.000 

1897  Furniture:   chairs,   kitchen 3.5000 

1905  Furniture :   chairs,   kitchen 4.7500 

1897  Table  cutlery :   knives  and  forks,  cocobolo 

handles ' 5.0000 

1905  Table  cutlery :  knives  and  forks,  cocobolo 

handles 6.6875 

1897  Woodenware  :  pails,  oak  grained 1.2417 

1905  Woodenware  :  pails,  oak  grained 1.7000 


Relative. 

price. 
88.6 

190.7 
83.9 

134.7 
71.3 
94.3 
96.8 

126.6 
97.8 

213.6 
91.2 

121.6 
91.8 

183.1 
68.7 
87.7 
56.3 
69.9 
93.0 

128.5 
88.8 

145.7 
84.8 
93.9 
74.3 

163.2 
86.3 

106.9 
92.5 

144.6 
72.2 

103.1 
89.0 

134.9 
94.6 

119.9 
82.1 

187.7 

102.2 

128.5 

89.1 

102.4 
82.9 

117.0 
80.7 

129.1 
91.5 

124.2 

82.5 

110.4 

95.6 

130.9 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  231 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Average.  Relative. 

Year.                                                                                            price.  price. 

1897     Rope  :  manila,    %-incli 0631  67.6 

1905     Rope  :  manila,   %-inch 1195  127.9 

1897     Starcli :    laundry 0300  86.2 

1905     Starch :   laundry ,..          .0329  94.5 

1897     Tobacco  :  plug,  Horseshoe 3758  94.9 

1905     Tobacco  :  plug,  Horseshoe 4900  123.7 

1897     Tobacco  :  smoking,  gran.  Seal  of  N.  C 5000  98.2 

1905     Tobacco:  smoking,  gran.  Seal  of  N.  C 6000  117.9 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 

PRICES  AND  COST  OF  LIVING  IN  THE  STATES  OF  NORTH 
CAROLINA,  PENNSYLVANIA,  OHIO,  ALABAMA. 

NORTH   CAROLINA— 1904. 
Agriculure. 

95  counties  report  an  increase  in  cost  of  living. 

2  counties  report  no  increase. 
81  counties  report  an  increase  of  wages. 
16  counties  report  no  increase. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  from  this  general  statement  that  the  in- 
crease of  wages  in  North  Carolina  has  not  kept  pace  with  the  in- 
creased cost  of  living. 

MONTHLY   FARM    WAGES. 

Men  receive  from  $11.07  to  $18.86  per  month. 
Women  receive  from  $6.16  to  $11.54  per  month. 
Children  average  $5.50  per  month. 

Miscellaneous  factories,  exclusive  of  furniture  and  textiles. 

203  factories  report,  of  which  199  employ  7,655  persons. 
Time,  10  hours  a  day. 
Highest  wage,  $2.09  a  day. 
Lowest  wage,  84c.  a  day. 
Average  wage,  $1.47  a  day. 
134  factories  report  an  increase  of  wages. 

1  factory  reports  a  decrease. 
56  factories  report  no  change. 

Cotton  and  woolen  mills. 

304  mills  employing  57,555  persons. 

Time,  10.8  hours  the  average  day's  work. 

Highest  average  wages  per  day : 

Men $2.13 

Women $1.04 

Lowest  average  wages  per  day: 

Men $1.62 

Women 49 

Children 41 


232  STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 


It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  cotton  and  woolen  mill  wages  for 
men  run  from  $16.12  to  $55.38  per  month  of  26  days;  for  women 
from  $12.74  to  $27.04;  for  children  $10.66.  If  the  time  for  shut- 
downs in  average  mill  work  be  deducted  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
wages  paid  cotton  and  woolen  mill  employees  do  not  differ  ma- 
terially from  the  wages  o'f  farmhands. 

Furniture  factories. 

86  factories  report,  of  which  85  employ  4,847  people. 

Highest  average  daily  wages: 

Adults $2.05 

Lowest  average  daily  wages: 

Adults $  .73 

Children 39 

Trades. 

29%  report  an  increase  of  wages. 

8%  report  a  decrease  of  wages. 
63%  report  no  change. 
63%  made  full  time. 
37%  made  part  time. 
85%  reported  increased  cost  of  living. 
15%  reported  no  increase. 

When  63%  are  reported  as  making  full  time,  this  must  not  be 
understood  to  be  a  full  year  of  313  working  days,  but  full  factory 
time  from  260  to  290  days.  It  will  also  be  seen  that  the  increase 
in  wages  by  no  means  equals  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  living. 

Railroad  employees. 

Total  number  reporting  12,788,  exclusive  of  officers. 
Average  daily  wages: 

Station  agents $1.12 

Other  station  men 82 

Engineers 2.83 

Firemen 1.34 

Conductors 2.40 

Other  train  men 1.06 

Machinists 2.39 

Carpenters 1.71 

Other  shop  men 1.13 

Section  foremen 1.41 

Other  track  men 85 

Switchmen 1.13 

Telegraph  operators 1.79 

Other  employees 1.20 

The  above  figures  are  taken  from  the  18th  Annual  Report  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  for  the  State  of  North  Carolina  for  the  year 
1904: 

OHIO— 1904. 

Manufacturing  establishments. 

Employees  reported  343,859. 
Male,  290,217. 
Female,  53,642. 
62,537  received  an  advance  of  7.9%. 
4,267  suflFered  a  reduction  of  6.5%. 
277,055  reported  no  change. 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  233 

Ignoring  the  very  small  decrease,  the  average  increase  in  manu- 
facturing wages  for  343,859  employees  was  but  one  and  five- 
tenths  per  cent. 

These  employees  for  ten  of  the  leading  industries  were  dis- 
tributed as  follows: 

Average 

Description.                                               Number.  yearly  wages. 

Boilers,  engines  and  tanks 12,480  $556 

Boots  and  shoes 14,543  349 

Clothing 16,358  453 

Flouring  mill  products 3,012  473 

Foundry  and  machine  shops 30,890  552 

Liquors 4,669  666 

Machinery 21,087  583 

Printing  and  binding 10,641  471 

Sash,  doors,  lumber 8,086  506 

Steel,  iron  and  tin 37,875  635 

From  these  figures  the  average  daily  wages  for  each  of  the 
preceding  occupations  were  as  follows: 

Boilers,  engines  and  tanks $1.79 

Boots  and  shoes 1.12 

Clothing 1.46 

Flouring  mills 1.52 

Foundry 1.78 

Liquors 2.14 

Machinery 1.88 

Printing  and  binding 1.51 

Sash,  etc 1.63 

Steel,  etc 2.14 

The  wages  paid  to  the  159,641  employees  of  the  preceding  ten 
leading  industries  amounted  to  $86,503,564,  or  an  average  yearly 
wage  of  $541,  or  an  average  daily  wage  of  $1.74  for  each  working 
day  in  a  working  year  of  310  days. 

And  as  these  leading  industries  are  the  highest  wage  industries, 
it  follows  that  the  average  daily  wage  for  all  the  manufacturing 
establishments  of  Ohio  employing  343,859  persons  is  less  than 
$1.50  per  day,  or  less  than  $9  per  week  for  the  working  year. 

These  figures  show  the  fallacy  of  calculations  based  on  hourly 
wages.  And  when  Republicans  quote  a  higher  daily  rate  for 
these  occupations  in  Ohio  they  obtain  it  by  another  fallacy.  They 
divide  the  actual  amount  paid  any  given  number  of  men  by  the 
number  of  days  they  were  actually  employed,  irrespective  of  the 
question,  whether  they  were  employed  all  the  days  in  a  full  work- 
ing year  or  not.  The  shutdowns  of  these  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments cost  each  laborer  from  one  to  two  months  of  his  time, 
which  makes  his  real  daily  wages  much  less  than  the  Republican 
party  boasts  it  to  be.  This  is  shown  more  fully  in  the  following 
calculations  based  on  the  Ohio  report  as  to  its  coal  miners. 

Coal  mining. 

Average  number  of  employees,  36,460. 
Amount  paid  in  wages,  $19,113,467. 
Average  yearly  wages,  $496. 
Average  daily  wages,  $1.60. 
Days  in  operation,  191. 


2S4  STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 

Republicans  will  quote  the  average  daily  wages  at  $2.60  a  day, 
as  does  the  report  from  which  these  figures  were  taken.  To  ob- 
tain this  result  191,  the  actual  number  of  days  worked  throughout 
the  year,  was  used  as  a  divisor,  instead  of  310,  the  actual  number 
of  work  days  in  the  year.  In  other  words,  the  operators  gave  the 
men  191  days'  work  during  the  year,  which  averaged  $2.60  a  day, 
but  when  the  whole  time  of  the  miner  is  considered  his  wages 
were  but  $1.60  a  day.  This  same  fallacious  method  of  making  a 
higher  apparent  daily  wage  rate  than  can  be  defended  on  common 
sense  principles  is  characteristic  of  Republican  statistics.  They 
ignore  the  idle  days,  not  the  idle  Sundays  which  all  men  ignore, 
but  the  idle  days  necessitated  by  the  manufacturing  trusts  in 
their  effort  to  regulate  and  control  the  output  of  the  mills. 

Of  the  36,460  reported  miners,  26,950  are  reported  as  receiving 
an  average  advance  in  wages  of  12.57%,  or  about  9%  for  the  en- 
tire 36.460  men.  This  advance  is  attributable  solely  and  alone 
to  the  coal  strike  arbitrament. 

These  figures  are  taken  from  the  28th  Annual  Report  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  of  the  State  of  Ohio  for  the  year  1904. 

PENNSYLVANIA— 1904. 

These  statistics  are  for  84  manufacturing  industries  of  Penn- 
sylvania, in  which  734  identical  establishments  report  for  every 
year  from  1896  to  1904: 

1.  Capital  invested,  1903 $269,958,813 

Cost  of  basic  material $199,030,954 

Wages  paid 99,270,883 

Total  298,301,837 

Profit,  1903 95,146,215 

Profit,  per  cent 35 

Market  value  of  product 393,448,052 

2.  Capital  invested,  1896 173,760,089 

Market  value  of  product 172,966,167 

Cost  of  basic  material 83,231,627 

Wages    paid 47,530,623 

Total  130,762,250 

Profit,  1896 42,203,917 

Profit,  per  cent 24 

Increase  of  profit,   per  cent.,   1903 

over  1896 45 

3.  Wages  paid: 

1896—124,563  persons  received 47,530,623 

1903—206,311  persons  received 99,270,883 

In  1896  the  average  daily  wage  was  $1.41 

In  1903  the  average  daily  wage  was  1.66 

Increase  in  daily  wages. , .25 

Increase,  per  cent.  1903  over  1896. .  17 

Profits  in  1896 — 24% — were  already  outrageously  high.  In 
1903  they  had  increased  to  35%,  or  an  increase  over  1896  of  45%. 

Wages  in  1896 — $1.41  per  day — were  outrageously  low.  In  1903 
they  averaged  $1.66,  an  increase  of  17%  over  1896.  Profits  that 
needed  no  increase  advanced  45%,  while  wages,  which  sadly 
needed  an  increase,  increased  but  17%.  That  is,  profits  increased 
45%,  while  wages  increased  17%.  This  is  the  meaning  of  Repub- 
lican prosperity. 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  235 


And  when  it  is  considered  that  the  price  of  living  during  the 
same  period  advanced  about  47%,  the  pitiful  condition  of  the 
laborer  who  works  for  wages  becomes  more  apparent. 

4.  t)ays  in  operation,  734  identical  establishments. 

Year.  Average  days  in  operation. 

1896 .271 

1897 286 

1898 286 

1899 289 

1900 289 

1901 292 

1902 293 

1903 290 

5.  Per  cent,  of  wages  of  value  of  the  product. 

1896  27.5 

1897  26.8 

1898  -. 26.4 

1899  24.7 

1900  .-. 23.8 

1901  24.3 

1902 24.1 

1903  25.2 

That  is  to  say,  the  laborers  received  2.3%  less  of  the  value  of 
the  product  in  1903  than  they  received  in  1896.  The  value  of  the 
product  in  1903  was  $393,448,052,  and  2.3%  of  this  amounts  to 
$9,049,305.  By  all  tests  of  fairness  this  $9,049,305  should  have 
gone  to  the  workmen  as  an  increase  of  wages,  if  the  Republican 
claim  of  greater  prosperity  in  1903  be  correct.  If  in  the  hard 
times  of  1896  27.5%  of  the  value  of  the  product  was  paid  as 
wages,  the  same  amount,  or  a  greater  amount  should  have  been 
paid  in  1903  to  give  the  claim  of  greater  prosperity  a  sound  basis 
in  fairness  and  logic.  And  in  all  fairness  this  amount — $9,049,- 
305 — should  have  been  added  to  the  wage  fund  of  the  workmen. 
The  increased  profits  of  1903  over  1896 — 45% — would  certainly 
stand  this  decrease  of  2.3%,  and  would  not  entail  any  hardships 
upon  the  employers.  Distributing  this  $9,049,305  between  the 
206,311  workmen  employed  in  the  734  identical  establishments  in 
1903  would  have  given  each  one  of  them  an  increase  of  $43.80, 
and  would  have  made  the  average  annual  wages  within  three 
cents  of  $525.  This,  by  adopting  the  Republican  method  of  cal- 
culating an  increased  daily  wage,  would  have  given  each  work- 
man a  dollar  and  eighty-one  cents  per  day  as  against  a  dollar 
and  sixty-six  cents  actually  received.  And  the  better  method  of 
calculating  daily  wages  would  have  made  the  difference  some- 
what more. 

While  this  single  instance  of  an  unfair  method  of  swelling 
manufacturers'  profits  is  adduced,  it  is  not  therefore  claimed  that 
it  is  the  only  instance  of  the  kind.  It  is  used  because  it  is  con- 
crete, deducible  from  the  figures  of  the  Pennsylvania  Report,  and 
easily  available. 

6,  Iron,  steel  and  tin-plate  production,  being  the  production  of 
pig  iron  steel,  rolled  iron  and  steel  and  tin-plate. 


236  STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 


PIG  IRON. 

Capital   invested $162,662,941 

Gross  tons  of  production 8,181,652 

Realized  value 131,775,613 

Value  of  basic  material $63,889,439 

Aggregate  wages 10,662,196 

Total  wages  and  material 74,551,635 

Total  gross  profit 57,223,988 

Per  cent,  of  gross  profit  more  than ....  35 

In  other  words,  the  industry  of  iron  and  steel  in  Pennsylvania 
in  1903  paid  a  gross  profit  of  35%  over  the  total  value  of  the  basic 
material  and  the  aggregate  wages  paid. 

The  realized  value  of  the  product,  $131,775,613,  when  compared 
with  the  aggregate  wages  paid,  $10,662,196,  shows  that  the  work- 
men received  but  a  trifle  more  than  8%  of  the  realized  value  of 
the  product.  When  it  is  considered  that  for  the  whole  734  iden- 
tical establishments  $99,270,883  were  paid  in  wages  upon  a 
realized  value  of  $393,448,052,  or  25.2%,  the  miserable  proportion, 
8%,  paid  workmen  in  pig  iron  is  evident. 

Average  number  of  days  in  operation 307 

Number  of  workmen  employed 16,912 

Average  yearly  earnings $630.00 

Average  daily  wages 2.05 

Cost  of  labor  per  ton 1.33 

Tonnage  per  man  per  day 1.57 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  preceding  calculation  the  gross 
profits  is  taken  as  the  excess  of  realized  value  over  value  of  basic 
materials  and  total  wages  paid.  There  is,  of  course,  an  additional 
nriscellaneous  expense,  but  this  is  so  small  as  not  to  vary  results 
materially. 

The  Census  of  1900  enables  us  to  reach  this  conclusion. 

Census  Figures  of  1900  for  Pig  Iron. 

Realized  value  of  products  in  United  States  $206,823,000 

Basic  material $131,536,000 

Total  wages 18,500,000 

Miscellaneous    7,463,000       157,499,000 


Total  profits $49,324,000 

Profit  per  cent 31 

Pennsylvania  in  1900. 

Realized  value $101,575,000 

Basic  material ' $64,095,000 

Total  wages 8,038,000 

Miscellaneous    3,269,000         75,402,000 


Total  profit $26,173,000 

Profit  per  cent •  34 

The  calculation  ignoring  miscellaneous  expense  yielded  a  profit 
per  cent,  of  35;  the  calculation  by  considering  miscellaneous  ex- 
pense yields  a  profit  per  cent,  of  34.  The  difference  is  so  slight 
as  not  to  affect  the  general  result. 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  237 


The  realized  value  in  1903,  as  shown  by  the  State  Report,  was 
$131,775,613,  and  the  total  production,  8,181,652  tons  of  pig  iron. 
This  made  the  average  selling  price  of  pig  iron  in  Pennsylvania 
for  that  year  $16.47  per  ton. 

The  Census  of  1900  gives  the  following  average  price  per  ton 
for  the  different  states  as  follows: 

Illinois $10.23  Kentucky $16.84 

Maryland 12.69  Michigan 16.46 

New  Jersey 16.81  New  York 15.07 

Ohio 15.71  Pennsylvania 14.98 

Tennessee 12.54  Texas 17.62 

Virginia 15.20  West  Virginia 16.57 

Wisconsin 13.34  Other  States 16.33 

The  lowest  average  price  is  that  of  Illinois,  and  the  Census 
authorities  explain  this  by  saying  that  "a  large  part  of  the  pig 
iron  made  in  this  state  is  consumed  by  the  makers  in  the  manu- 
facture of  steel." 

That  is  to  say,  they,  as  pig  iron  manufacturers,  sell  their  prod- 
ucts to  themselves,  as  steel  manufacturers,  at  $10.22  a  ton.  The 
average  price  of  pig  iron  for  the  whole  country  was  $14.29  per 
ton  in  1900.  This  would  give  the  steel  manufacturers  of  Illinois, 
who  were  at  the  same  time  pig  iron  manufacturers,  an  advantage 
of  $4.06  per  ton,  or  nearly  40%  upon  their  steel  products.  If  the 
comparison  could  be  made  with  actual  prices  this  percentage  of 
advantage  would  doubtless  be  materially  increased.  It  will  also 
be  noticed  that  the  labor  cost  of  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron  is 
about  16%  of  the  cost  of  basic  material,  and  not  quite  8%  of  the 
realized  value  of  the  product. 

In  all.  these  calculations  the  term  "miscellaneous  expenses" 
covers  taxes,  rent,  interest,  insurance,  advertising,  stamps,  con- 
tract work  and  other  similar  expenses;  the  term  "basic  ma- 
terials" covers  raw  materials,  partly  manufactured  materials, 
fuel,  rent  of  power  and  heat,  cost  of  mill  supplies  and  freight. 

Falling  Off  of  Production  of  Rolled  Iron  and  Steel  in  1904  as 
Compared  with  1903. 

Production  1903.  Production  1904. 

Articles.                           Gross  tons.  Gross  tons. 

Iron  and  steel  rails 1,125,751  825,434 

Plates  and  sheets 1,689,824  1,565,190 

Cut  nails 33,509  28,162 

Sailing  off  in  Wages  Paid. 

Aggregate  wages,  1903 . ." $64,664,647 

Aggregate  wages,  1904 55,932,427 

Falling  off  in  Wage  Earners. 

Workmen,  1903 99,294 

Workmen,  1904 91,146 

Falling  of  in  Annual  Wages. 

Yearly  wages,   1903 $651.24 

Yearly  wages,   1904 613.66 


238  STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 

Falling  off  in  Average  Daily  Wages. 

Daily  wages,    1903 $2.25 

Daily  wages,   1904 2.09 

Falling  off  in  Labor  Cost,  per  ton. 

Labor  cost,  1903   (per  ton) $7.97 

Labor  cost,  1904   (per  ton) 7.19 

In  the  production  of  crude  steel  the  same  decrease  of  produc- 
tion is  reported. 

1903.  1904. 

Articles.                                         Tons.  Tons. 

Bessemer 3,910,059  3,465,669 

Open  Hearth 4,264,410  4,093,100 

Crucible 72,908  55,023 

Total 8,247,377  7,613,792 

A  falling  off  of  633,585  tons. 

The  same  reduction  is  shown  in  pig  iron. 

Gross  tons  produced,  1903 8,181,652 

Gross  tons  produced,  1904 7,411,300 

Value  per  ton,  1903 $16.1 1 

Value  per  ton,  1904 13.74 

Cost  of  basic  material,  1903 $63,889,439 

Cost  of  basic  material,  1904 $54,664,808 

Number  of  workmen,  1903 16,912 

Number  of  workmen,   1904 14,087 

Aggregate  wages,  1903 $10,662,196 

Aggregate  wages,  1904 7,909,335 

Average  yearly  earnings,  1903 630.45 

Average  yearly  earnings,  1904 561.46 

Average  daily  wage,  1903 2.05 

Average  daily  wage,  1904 1.98 

Average  cost  of  labor  per  ton,  1903 1,33 

Average  cost  of  labor  per  ton,  1904 1.07 

Average  cost  of  basic  material  per  ton,  1903. .  . .  7.81 

Average  cost  of  basic  material  per  ton,  1904. .  . .  7.38 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  basic  material  and  the  labor  cost 
of  every  ton  of  pig  iron  produced  in  Pennsylvania  in  1904  was 
$8.45.  As  the  realized  value  of  each  ton  was  $13.74,  the  profit, 
excluding  miscellaneous  expenses,  was  $5.29  per  ton,  or  38%. 

ANTHRACITE  COAL. 

Total  tonnage  mined 58,057,447 

Total  value  on  board  cars $140,370,498.00 

Average  number  of  days 231 

Average  number  of  people  employed 160,579 

Average  yearly  earnings $574.28 

Average  daily  wage,  for  231  days. .* 2.48 

Average  daily  wage,  for  31'3  days 1.83 

Average  number  of  tons  mined  by  each  miner  per  day.  6.5 

BITUMINOUS  COAL. 

Total  number  of  tons  mined 58,175,108 

Realized  value  at  mines $59,603,146.00 

Days  in  operation 188 

Average  number  of  workmen 93,114 

Aggregate  wages  paid $40,133,604.00 

Average  yearly  wage 431.02 

Average  daily  wage  for  188  days 2.29 

Average  daily  wage  for  313  days 1.37 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  239 


TEXTILE  INDUSTRIES. 

Total  value  of  product $105,879,546.00 

Average  number  of  employees 54,011 

Number  of  days  in  operation 284 

Aggregate  wages  paid $24,541,029.00 

Average  yearly  wage 383.39 

Average  daily  wage,  for  284  days 1.35 

COTTON  GOODS. 

Total  value  of  product $17,457,423.00 

Days  in  operation 286 

Average  number  of  employees 10,681 

Aggregate  wages  paid $4,430,642.00 

Average  yearly  wage 414.82 

Average  daily  wage,  for  286  days 1.45 

WOOLEN   GOODS. 

Value  of  product $44,054,932.00 

Days  in  operation 292 

Number  of  employees 22,160 

Wages  paid $8,819,725.00 

Average  yearly  wage 398.00 

Average  daily  wage,  for  292  days 1.36 

SILK  GOODS. 

Number  of  employees 3,687 

Average  yearly  wage $378.15 

Average  daily  wage 1-34 

KNIT  GOODS. 

Number  of  employees 13,605 

Average  yearly  wage $321.27 

Average  daily  wage 1«14 

FIBER  GOODS. 

Average  yearly  wage $385.98 

Average  daily  wage 1.37 

CARPETS. 
Average  daily  wage $1.54 

WOOLEN  AND  WORSTED. 

Average  daily  wage $1.14 

These  figures  as  to  Pennsylvania  are  taken  from  the  Annual 
Report  of  the  Secretary  of  Internal  Affairs,  part  three,  1904. 


ALABAMA, 

Census  Report,  Bulletin  43,  1905. 

1312  manufacturing  establishments  in  the  eleven  selected  in- 
dustries— cars,  coke,  cotton  goods,  fertilizers,  foundries,  iron  and 
steel,  lumber,  planing  mills,  cotton  seed  oil,  printing,  turpentine 


240  STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 


and  rosin — forming  70%  of  all  establishments  in  the  state,  re- 
ported as  follows  for  the  year  1905 : 

Capital   employed $90,106,030 .  00 

Value  of  products 93,953,829 .  00 

Number  of  wage  earners 54,073 

Wages  paid 19,283,768.00 

Average  annual  wages 357 .  00 

Average  daily  wage,  313  days 1.14 

Miscellaneous   expenses 6,705,400 .  00 

Cost  of  basic  materials 52,256,700 .  00 

Profit 15,707,961.00 

Profit,  per  cent 17 

IRON  AND  STEEL. 

Twenty  establishments  with  capital $29,044,289 .  00 

Value  of  product 24,687,359.00 

Number  of  employees 8,590 

Aggregate  wages  paid 3,447,889 .  00 

Average  annual  wages 401 .  00 

Average  daily  wages,  313  days 1 .  28 

COTTON  GOODS. 

Forty-six  establishments  with  capital $24,758,649.00 

Value  of  product 16,760,332.00 

Number  of  employees 1 1,480 

Aggregate  wages  paid 2,457,928 .  00 

Average  annual  wages,  313  days 214 .  00 

Average  daily  wages,  313  days .68 

UNITED  STATES  OFFICIAL  WAGE    FIGURES. 

Comparison  of  the  wages  of  labor  as  shown  by  the  Nineteenth 
Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  of  the  Department 
of  Commerce  and  Labor  for  1904: 

Laborers.  Wages  per  hour     Wages  per  hour 

1896.  1903. 

(In  cents  and  fractions.) 

Blacksmiths .21.54  23.64 

Grinders,  plow 19.20  21.90 

Cutters,  boots  and  shoes 21.78  23.30 

Stitchers,  boots  and  shoes 30.09  31.50 

Vampers,  boots  and  shoes 19 .  48  21 .  10 

Grinders,  boots  and  shoes 15 . 25  15 . 25 

Mixers,  boots  and  shoes 16. 13  16.42 

Shoemakers,  female 12.60  13.34 

Tone  regulators 33.59  36.11 

Mullers,  cotton  seed 6.00  6.25 

Linters,  cotton  seed 10.26  10.78 

Pressers,  cotton  seed 12.87  12.83 

Laborers,  linseed  oil 15 .  00  16 .  00 

Pressmen,  linseed  oil 16.22  17.43 

Rollermen,  linseed   oil 22.18  18.00 

Bleachers,  paper  and  wood  pulp 15.27  16.83 

Calendrers,  paper  and  wood  pulp 13 .  87  12 .  51 

Cutters,  paper  and  wood  pulp 8.88  9.77 

Finishers,  paper  and  wood  pulp 10.48  10.84 

Rag  sorters,  paper  and  wood  pulp 17.11  17. 89 

Rag  sorters,  female,  paper  and  wood  pulp  .9.29  9 .  04 

Pipefitters,  petroleum 23.58  23.73 

Kilnmen,  pottery 27.01  28.29 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  241 


Laborers.  Wages  per  hour     Wages  per  hour 

1896.  1903. 

(In  cents  and  fractions.) 

Sewers,  books,  female 10.71  10 .  15 

Linotype   operators. 33.51  26.93 

Finishers,  rope  and  twine 8.00  8.00 

Hemp  preparers 17.33  16.71 

Laborers    14.29  14.33 

Layers   14.00  14.00 

Ropemakers 17.78  18.70 

Spinners    13.69  12.62 

Twisters  13.00  13.00 

Blacksmiths,  shipbuilding 28 .  24  28 .  48 

Boilermakers,    shipbuilding 26.33  25 .  68 

Laborers,   shipbuilding 17  .  02  18 .  55 

Riggers,  shipbuilding 26.05  25.33 

Riveters,   shipbuilding 25.34  25.31 

Sparmakers,  shipbuilding 33.07  34.66 

Beamers,  shipbuilding 18.33  18.19 

Loom  fixers,  silk  goods 29.05  29.70 

Quillers,  silk  goods 10.07  9.89 

Spinners,  silk  goods 7 .  80  7 .  95 

Twisters  in  silk  goods 25 .  01  •  26 .  14 

Warpers,  female,  silk  goods 19.16  15.69 

Weavers,  male,  silk  goods 18 .  89  16 .02 

Weavers,  female,  silk  goods 17 .  56  15 .  34 

Weavers,  ribbon,  silk  goods 24.25  20.61 

Weavers,  ribbon,  female,  silk  goods 23.21  20.89 

Gutters,   hog 31.54  31.28 

Headers,  hog 26.25  28.17 

Scrapers,   hog 27.63  25.23 

Cutters,  soap 16.37  1.7.50 

Holders,  soap 16.88  17.71 

Coopers,  sugar  refining 11.44  11.79 

Filtermen,  sugar  refining 11 .  37  11 .  58 

Firemen,  sugar  refining 16.37  19.03 

Laborers,  sugar  refining 15.37  15.51 

Water  tenders,  sugar  refining 19.96  18.63 

Weighers,  sugar  refining 19.31  21 .  11 

Assorters,  tin  plate 25 .  00  25 .  00 

Dusters,  tin  plate ..8.33  8 .  82 

Laborers,  tin  plate 15 .  84  15 .  36 

Cigarette  machine  feeders 7 .  50  7 .47 

Cigarette  machine  feeders,  female 10.48  .       10.48 

Cigarette  machine  operators 13.97  15.72 

Packers,    cigars 15 .  42  12 .  99 

Stemmers,  female 7.32  8 .  56* 

Casers    14.22                  '  13.12 

Granulators  9.00  S.SS 

Sorters 15.81  15.16 

Combers,  woolens 10.23  10.95 

Dyers,  woolens 12.16  13 .  55 

Clampers,  paper  boxes,  male 20.34  20.34 

Clampers,  paper  boxes,  female 13.56  13.56 

Gluers,  paper  boxes,  female 14.38  14.99 

Limers,  paper  boxes,  male 13 .  56  '  13 .  56 

Paper  cutters 27 .  27  25 .  55 

Scorers    23 .  84  25 .  99 

Trimmers    8.53  9.43 

Off  bearers,  brick .15.05  17.98 

Lathers   .  .• 35 .  84  37 .  59 

Roofers 23.31  26.13 

Buttermakers    14 .  88  15 .  34 

Cheesemakers    16 .  29  17 .  50 

Candymakers    23.84  23 .  77 

Burlers,  carpets 13 .  24  15.91 


242  STATISTICS  ON  WAGES. 

Laborers.  Wages  per  hour     Wages  per  hour 

1896.  1903. 

(In  cents  and  fractions.) 

Dyers,  carpets 14 .  85 

Loom  fixers 24.53 

Spoolers   11 .30 

Twisters    9.74 

Weavers   13.31 

Weavers,  ingrain 17.41 

Blacksmiths,  carriage  and  wagon 23 .  40 

Bodymakers    23.61 

Machine  wood  workers 18 .  20 

Painters 21.09 

Blacksmiths,  steam  railroad  cars 25 .  65 

Coppersmiths,  steam  railroad  cars 27 .  95 

Laborers,  steam  railroad  cars 12.79 

Pipe  fitters,  steam  railroad  cars 23 .  80 

Cutters,   clothing 24.33 

Examiners,  clothing 13 .  34 

Finishers,  clothing 8 .  85 

Pressers,    clothing 7 .  38 

Sewing  machine  operators 8 .  25 

Bushelmen   11 .  67 

Meaters,  cooperage 20 .  65 

Levelers,   cooperage 29 .  53 

Raisers,  cooperage 26 .  05 

Carding  machine  tenders 9 .  28 

Dyers  10.63 

Bleachers   11 .84 

Calendrers    13 .  22 

Color   mixers 12 .  25 

Dyers,  male 13 .  83 

Printers    46.12 

Bolters,  flour. 16.37 

Boilermakers    26 .26 

Coremakers 9 .  84 

Canners    17 .  50 

Canners,  female 1 1 .  66 

Gas,   chargers 24 .  75 

Gas,  laborers 16.10 

Pipefitters    24.80 

Retort  men 23 .  28 

Batchmakers,  glass 19 .  40 

Flangers,    hats 32 .  44 

Pouncers,  hats 25 .  00 

Trimmers,  hats 13 .  76 

Millers,    liquors 23 .27 

Warehouse   men 18.19 

Yeast  makers 65 .  29 

Coopers,  liquors 24. 15 

Action  makers,  organs 23 .  63 

Case  makers,  organs 20.34 

Pipe  makers,  organs 29 .  72 

Pipe  organ  builders . ' 30 .  66 

Tuners  30.69 

Voicers    - 41.83 


These  figures  carefully  gathered  by  the  Government  show  that 
the  actual  wage  scale  per  hour  for  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
laborers  show  an  actual  decrease  in  1903  over  1896;  the  cases  in 
which  an  increase  is  shown,  while  not  reaching  an  average  of  a 
10  per  cent,  advance,  may  be  attributable  more  to  the  adoption  of 
the  eight  hour  system  than  to  any  other  principle ;  the  daily  wages 
may  remain  the  same  in  both  years,  while  the  hourly  wages  show 


STATISTICS  ON  WAGES.  243 

a  slight  advance.  The  saving  to  the  laborer  is  merely  that  of  an 
hour  or  two  hour's  time.  Many  other  occupations  are  set  out  in 
full  in  the  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  which  are  not  repro- 
duced here,  and  which  show  a  much  greater  increase  in  hourly 
wages.  An  analysis  of  these  advances  show  them  to  be  in  those 
occupations  most  clearly  dominated  by  trades  unionism,  and  the 
reason  for  these  greater  advances  is  attributable  in  no  sense  to 
the  tariff,  nor  to  the  savings  which  follow  the  concentration  of 
industries.  Indeed,  an  analysis  of  the  profits  made  by  these 
concentrations  or  trusts,  show  that  a  much  larger  percentage  of 
the  value  of  the  products  might  have  been  devoted  to  the  wage 
fund  without  injury  to  a  single  industry.  In  other  words  profits 
are  too  high,  owing  to  the  tariff  and  the  trusts;  wages,  on  the 
contrary,  at  their  highest,  are  too  low  in  comparison  with  these 
profits;  and  at  their  average,  these  wages  are  unconscionably  low; 
and  at  their  lowest,  these  same  wages,  not  only  defraud  their 
recipients  of  a  fair  living,  but  convict  the  trusts  and  the  tariff  of 
fastening  upon  American  labor  the  pauper  wage  scales  of  Europe. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A. 

COMPARISON   OF   EXPORT  AND   HOME   PRICES. 

The  first  and  second  table  is  taken  from  the  American  Export 
Monthly  of  June  18,  1904,  published  by  Arkell  and  Douglas,  5  to 
11  Broadway,  New  York  City,  New  York. 

FiEST  Table. — Showing  differences  in  discounts  from  price  lists  for  for- 
eign and  home  consumers  and  the  per  cent,  of  difference  between  export 
and  home  prices;  many  varieties  and  sizes  are  often  included  under  one    ■ 
discount. 

Note. — Where  several  discounts  are  quoted  the  first  figure  is  the  dis- 
count from  list  price,  the  second  figure  is  the  discount  from  the  remainder, 
the  third  figure  is  the  discount  fEom  that  remainder,  and  so  on.  Thus,  in 
the  line  for  "Augers"  below,  the  home  discount  is  given  as  "50,  10,  5."  If 
the  list  price  was  $1  these  discounts  would  mean  50  per  cent,  off  from  $1 
(50  cents),  less  10  per  cent,  of  remainder  (5  cents),  less  5  per  cent,  of 
that  remainder  (2^4  cents),  leaving  42%  cents  as  net  price  to  buyer. 


Firm  or  corporation  and  article. 


Export  dis- 
count from 
list. 


Home  dis-  (   Dif- 

countfroml   fer- 

list.         ence. 


Russell  &  Erwin  Manufacturing  Co. : 

AUger  bits.  Swan's  Jennings 

Locks,  door 

Bells,    cow 

SneL  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Augers   

John   S.   Fray  &  Co. : 

Braces    

Enterprise  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Coffee  and  spice  mills 

A.  M.  Hayden  &  Russell,  Burdsall  &  Ward 
Bolt  and  Nut  Co. : 

Bolts,    tire 

Bolts,  carriage 

Bridgeport  Chain  Co.  : 

Chains,    halter 

Covert  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Halters,    jute 

Halters,  sisal 

Handles,  fork,  rake,  hoe  and  shovel .  . 
Beamis  &  Call  Hardware  Co. : 

Pipe  wrenches,  adjustable  "S" 

Pike  Manufacturing  Co.  : 

Scythe  and   oil   stones 

Henry  Disston's  Sons : 

Saws,    hand 

Saws,  crosscut 

Stanley   Rule   and   Level    Co. : 

Rules,   boxwood 


Per  cent. 
60 
50 
50,15 

75 

70 

40,10 


80,10 
80,  10 

70,  10,  7 

50,  10,  10 

40,  10 

50 

50 

50 

40  and 
60  and  10 

50, 10,  10,  10 


Per  cent. 
50 
40 
50 

50,  10,  5 

60 

25  to  30 


72,  10 

75 

60,10 

40,  5,  5 
30 
45 

40 

33 

25 
45 

60  to  60,  10 


P.ct. 
25 
20 
19 

72 

33 

30 


28 
39 

44 

33 
30 
10 

20 

50 

43 
53 

35 


> 


APPENDICES. 


245 


Second  Table. — Showing  difference  between  export  and  home  prices  on 
sample  specified  articles. 


Firm  or  corporation  and  article. 

Russell   &   Erwin    Manufacturing  Co.  : 

Auger  bits,  Swan's  Jenning  No.  3,  dozen 

Snell  Manufacturing  Co.  : 

Auger  bits,  solid  cast  steel  car  No.  7,  dozen.  . 
A.    &    M.    Haydon : 

Bolts,  tire  1-inch,  per  hundred 

Bolts,  carriage,  2-inch,  per  hundred 

John  S.  Fray  &  Co. : 

Braces,  Spofford  No.  7,  per  dozen 

Braces,  Woodhead  No.  117,  per  dozen 

Braces,  ratchet  No.  141,  per  dozen 

Enterprise  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Coffee  and  spice  mills,  wall,    each 

Coffee  and  spice  mills,  counter,  No.   4,   each.. 

Coffee  and  spice  mills,  countw,  No.  212,  each. 
Bridgeport   Chain  Co.  : 

Chains,  halter.  Brown,  No.  4,  6  foot,  dozen.  .  .  . 
Beamis  &  Call  Hardware  Co.  : 

Wrenches,  "S,"  adjustable  pipe,  8  inches,  doz. 
Do 

Wrenches,  combination,  10  inches,  dozen 


Export 
price. 


Home 
price. 


Differ- 
ence. 


$1.60 

$2.00 

2.70 

3.60 

.27 

.98 

.30 
1.35 

4.80 
10.80 
12.60 

6.40 
14.40 
16.80 

.67 

4.32 

16.20 

.88 

5.60 

21.00 

2.00 

2.80 

7.50 

4.50 

13.75 

9.00 

5.55 

14.25 

I  Per.  ct. 
25 


33 


10 
34 

30 

30 
30 

30 
30 
30 

40 

20 

22 

6 


[List  from  Exporters  and  Importers'  Journal  of  June  18,  1904,  published 
by  Henry  W.   Peabody,   17   State  street,   New  York  City,  N.   Y.] 

First  Table. — Shoicing  differences  in  discounts. 


Firm  or  corporation   and  article. 


Export  dis- 
count from 
list. 


Home  dis-  1   Dif- 

countfroml   fer- 

list.         ence. 


Henry  Disston's  Sons : 

Levels    and    plumbs 

Saws,    band 

Saws,    hand 

Saws,   compass 

Shears    

Squares,     try 

Andrew  B.  Hendrix  &  Co. : 

Bird   cages,    brass 

Enterprise  Manufacturing  Co.  : 

Fruit  seeders,  Nos.  36  and  38 
Collins    &    Co.  : 

Hinges,  japanned    spring 

Hinges,  acme  brass 

Springs,   door,   gem   coil 

Covert  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Harness    snaps 

Breast  chains 

Cleveland  Twist  Drill  Co.  : 

Bit  stocks   and   drills 

Boston  and  Lockport  Block  Co. : 

Tackle   blocks 

Charles   Parker   Co. : 

Vises     

Miller's   Falls    Co.  : 

Wrenches,    Coes 


Per  cent. 

70, 10,  10,  10 

60,  10,  10 

45,    5 

45,    5 

50 

70,  10,  10,  10 

50 

40 

25,  20,  10 

40,  10 

35 

50 
50,10 

65,10 

75 

25,  10,  5 

40,  10,  5,  5,  7 


Per  cent. 
70 
60 
25 
25 
30 
70 

P.ct. 
36 
23 
43 

43 
40 
36 

40,10 

8 

30 

16 

25,10 
30 
30 

24 
30 
16 

35 
40 

42 
30 

60,  10^  5 

8 

70,10 

8 

25 

17 

40,  5,  5,  7 

13 

246 


APPENDICES. 


Second  Table.- 


-Shotoing  samples  of  differences  hettoeen  export  and  home 
prices  in  specific  articles. 


Firm  or  corporation  and  article. 


Export 
price. 


Home 
price. 


Andrew  B.  Hendrix  Co. : 

Bird  cages.  No.  301,  fancy,  witli  R.  mats,  doz. 
Henry  Disston's  Sons : 

Hardware,  saws,  band,  3  to  14,  per  foot 

Hardware,  saws,  band,  2  to     3,   per  foot 

Hardware,  saws,  hand,  18  inches,  per  dozen.  . 

Hardware,  saws,  hand.  Acme,  16  in.,  per  doz. 

Hardware,  saws,  hand.  No.  7,  14  in.,  per  doz. 

Hardware,  saws,  compass,    No.    2,    16    inches, 
per    dozen 

Hardware,  saws,  bacli.  No.  4,  12  in.,  per  doz. 

Hardware,  saws,  butcher,  No.  7,  18  in.,  per  doz. 

Hardware,  saws,  wood.    No.    69,    per   doz 

Hardware,  trysquare,  No.  1,  5  in.,  per  doz.  . .  . 

Hardware,  trowels,   No.   12,   per  doz 

Hardware,  bunghole  borers,  No.  2,  each 

Hardware,  levels  and  plumbs,  No.  8,  per  doz.. 
Smith  &  Egge  Manufacturing  Co, : 

Hardware,  shears,    Eurelca,    No.    2 

Ames  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Hardware,  shovels,  spodes,  D.  H.,  sq.  pt,  doz.  . 

Hard'ware,  shovels,  spades,  R.  D.,  sq.  pt.,  doz.  . 

Hardware,  shovels,  spades,  long  H.,  sq.  pt.,  doz 
Columbian   Hardware  Co. : 

Hardware,  hinges.  Acme,  2  I..  No.  2,  doz.  pairs 

Hardware,  hinges,  Acme,  W.  B.,  No.  2,  doz.  pairs 

Hardware,  hinges,  door  springs,  Gem  coil,  gross. 
Boston  &  Lockport  Block  Co. : 

Hardware,  tackle  block,14  in.,  single,    each 

Hardware,  tackle  block,  14  in.,  double,   each 

Collins   &   Co. : 

Hardware,  wrenches,  Coes,  10  in.,  per  doz.  . .  . 
L.   S.   Starrett  Co. : 

Hardware,  hack-saw  blades,  9  in.,  per  doz.... 
Enterprise  Manufacturing  Co.  : 

Fruit  presses,  Nq.  3,  each 

Raisin  seeder.  No.  36,  per  doz 

Covert  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Hardware,  snaps,  bar.  Derby,    gross 

Hardware,  snaps,  bar.  Jockey,    gross 

Hardware,  snaps,  bar.  Trojan,   gross 

Hardware,  snaps,  bar.  Yankee,    gross 

Hardware,  jacks,  carriage,    per   doz 

Hard'ware,  jacks,  wagon,  per  doz 

Hardware,  jacks,  automobile,  per  doz 

Hardware,  jacks,  automobile,  screw,  per  doz.  . 
Sampson    Cordage    Works : 

Hardware,  sash  cord.  No.   7,  per  pound 

Hardware,  sash  cord,  Mass.,   per  pound 

M.    S.   Benedict  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Hardware,  teaspoons,    gross 

Hardware,  dessert  spoons,  gross 

Hardware,  tablespoons,    gross 

Hardware,  forks,    gross j 

Cleveland  Twist  Drill   Co. : 

Hardware,  twist  drill,  bit  stock,  1  in.,  per  doz. 

Hardware,  twist  drill,  taper  sh.,  1  in.,  each.. 
Charles  Parker  Co. : 

Hardware,  vises.  No.  5,  X,  each 

Hardware,  coffee  mills,  box.  No.  401,  per  doz.  . 

Hardware,  coffee  mills,  side,  No.  90,  per  doz.  . 
Columbian  Hardware  Co. : 

Hardware,  vises,  solid    box.    No.    90,    each.... 

Hardware,  vises,  parallel,  5   in.,   each 

Malin  &  Co.  : 

Hardware,  wire  ann.  tin,  1-lb.  spools,  per  doz .  . 

Hardware,  wire  ann.  tin,  1-lb.  spools,  per  doz.  . 

Hardware,  wire,  barb  pr.   hd..   lbs 

Hardware,  wire,  blflck   fencing,    p.    hd.,    lbs.  . .  . 
Geo.  W.  Korn  Razor  Manufacturing  Co. : 

Razors,  safety,  each 


$15.00 

$16.20 

1.00 

.75 

6.00 

11.51 

6.37 

1.22 

.92 

8.36 

16.50 

8.40 

2.61 
6.00 
7.00 
6.00 
1.06 
10.00 
1.00 
4.60 

3.65 
8.36 
8.70 
7.80 
1.43 
12.95 
1.25 
6.30 

10.00 

14.00 

4.68 
4.95 
4.81 

5.10 
5.40 
5.25 

.75 
1.08 
7.80 

.98 
1.40 
8.40 

1.75 
2.63 

2.00 
2.83 

5.46 

5.86 

.48 

.53 

1.80 
7.20 

2.40 
9.00 

3.20 
2.39 
1.84 
2.40 
5.00 
6.40 
7.60 
18.00 

4.25 
3.00 
2.63 
3.12 

6.88 

8.80 

10.45 

23.95 

.24 

.20 

.33 

.28 

1.00 
1.50 
2.00 
2.30 

1.10 
1.65 
2.20 
2.53 

8.86 
.94 

10.13 
1.08 

I      15.40 
1.44 

2.88 

19.20 
1.80 
3.60 

6.40 
2.25 

8.00 
3.00 

.70 

.90 

2.20 

1.25 

.80 

.98 

2.70 

2.00 

1.08 

1.20 

APPENDICES. 


2i1 


f 


[List  from  the  Export  World  and  Herald  of  July  5,  1904,  published  by 
the  American  Trading  Company,  Broad  Exchange  Building,  New  York 
City,  N.  Y.] 

FIRST  TABLE, 


Firm   or  corporation  and  article. 


Export  dis-l 

Home  dis- 

Dif- 

count 

count 

fer- 

from list. 

from  list. 

ence. 

Per  cent. 

1    Percent. 

Per  ct. 

50,10 

50 

11 

50,10,    5 

50,  10 

6 

35,    5 

16 

33 

50,  10 

40 

33 

50 

40 

20 

C.   Atkins  &   Co.,    Indianapolis,    Ind 

Hardware,  siaw    (circular)    

Hardware,  saw   (band)    

Hardware,  saw   (crosscut)     

Hardware,  siaw   (hand) 

Hardware,  saw   (back)    


1  Export  1  Home   |  Differ- 
I  price.   I  price.   |   ence. 


J.    S.    Barron    &    Co. : 

Freezers,  ice  cream,  Alaska,  4-quart,  each .  . . 

Washboards,  single  zinc,  per  dozen 

Washboards,    solid    zinc,    per    dozen 

Washboards,  solid  zinc,   per  dozen 

Henry  Chesney  Hammer  Co.  : 

Hammers,  farriers'  No.  54,  per  dozen 

Hammers,  machinists',  No.  91,  per  dozen 

Knowles    Scale   Works : 

Scales,  square  pLatform,  with  wh.,  each 


1 

$1.82 
1.50 
2.25 
2.40 

1 

$2.40 
2.40 
2.65 
3.00 

4.44 
7.00 

4.80 
8.51 

14.97 

17.50 

[Per.  ct. 

33 
60 
17 
25 

9 

20 

17 


In  February,  1904,  the  literary  bureau  of  the  Democratic  Congressional 
Committee  received  a  letter  from  Henry  Rossell  &  Co.  (Limited),  SheflSeld, 
England,  large  manufacturers  and  dealers  in  files  and  tool  steel.  This 
letter  says : 

"As  an  illustration  of  the  unfair  manner  in  which  home  buyers  of 
files  are  treated  by  the  United  States  manufacturers,  I  inclose  you  here- 
with a  comparison  of  the  prices  charged  to  the  buyers  in  the  United 
States  with  those  offered  by  the  same  manufacturers  here." 

Some  of  the  prices  on  the  list  inclosed  follow : 

Comparative  prices,  per  dozen,  of  Amerioa^  files  in  America  and  England. 


Article. 


Eng-     United     Dififer- 
land.     States,     ence. 


Flat  bastard,     4   inches 

Flat  bastard,     6   inches 

Flat  bastard,   10   inches 

Hand  bastard,  4  inches... 
Hand  bastard,  6  inches... 
Hand  bastard,  10  inches... 
Half-round  bastard,  4  inches 
Half-round  bastard,  6  inches 
Half-round  bastard,  10  inches 
Round  bastard,  4  inches.  .  .  . 
Round  bastard,  6  inches.... 
Round  bastard.  10  inches.  . .  . 
Square  bastard,  4  inches... 
Square  bastard,  6  inches .  .  . 
Square   bastard,    10   inches... 


$0.34 

$0.92 

.50 

1.07 

1.08 

1.75 

.38 

.92 

.62 

1.07 

1.30 

1.87 

.34 

1.20 

.50 

1.52 

1.08 

2.27 

.34 

.75 

.50 

.87 

1.08 

1.40 

.34 

.95 

.50 

1.15 

1.08 

1.85 

Perct. 

170 

114 

62 

142 

73 

44 

253 

204 

108 

121 

74 

30 

179 

130 

71 


From  these  figures  we  see  that  the  American  File  Association,  which 
has  not  revised  its  price  list  to  American  buvers  since  November  1,  1899, 
Is  charging  us  for  most  kinds  of  its  small  files  more  than  twice  as  much 
as  it  charges  Englishmen  for  these  same  files,  and  for  half-round  files  we 
must  pay  them  three  times  the  price  charged  Englishmen. 


24^ 


APPENDICES. 


<1  So 


PiO 


o  eo  eo< 

CO  t-os  ©  00< 

05  tHOO  iH  rHl 

<M  WO  O  Oi 


eON  CO 

WCO  iH 

d 


ooo 


tH       coo 


<05       «0 
<0       C-1 


NO 


-eo 

g05 


.2m 


SB 


89  •? 


-I 

it 

^§ 
^^ 

rl 

I-I 
it 

SI 


v:<i^ 


ooo 

\Or-i 

OM 

OOO 


■^o 

COiH 

o 


tHOO 
tHCO 


I- coo 
d-^'oi 

COOb- 
C0^05^iN 

oo'c^fc^" 


T-ICO  O 

rHOO  <M 

tH(N  <N 

05  CO 


<£>00 

COrH 


OO 

OO 

cod 

(MiH 


lOCO       tH 
iHCO       -^ 

oT    c4" 


Oiiooi 

(MC^lO 

IOCDtH 


ooo  O  O"*       00       ©O       O       iH©       l^  ©05© 

(N©  O  ©CO      (N       ©©       ©      (M©      CD  iq©© 

TfJeo  00  d(NdiHiHCDT}Hr-5io  aicicc 

t-ia  00  »OlOCDC0(N©C0©rS  t-'^t'© 

©^00  ©_  iHCO      00      CON      iH      (N(M      lO  "^'^^'^ 

t-"  th  ©'t-^    t4    iH  cc     Oi  ciio© 

CO  LO  CO  tH  ©  C5© 

©  O  t-N 


•CO 

a  a 
o  o 


:  p*> 

;  o)     _ 
o     fl  "-^  n  o 


©., 

00-^ 


<jt(03       ai 


IP  CO 


4->       •    O 

O  jf  t-i 

^  o 
ej  p  es 

ftt-  St. 

^a     ft 

>•  -         OS 

(MCOCO 


00      o 

5    ^j 


o     a 

a    2, 
^    ft 


tc5 


jg  CO 

3  O 


o)  :3  o 
^.2  ftci 


'^  '"CO  CJ 
-M    ■  0)  o)  a> 

1^  C-.  u  £  t^ 


ft-n^  be 


1^ 
5  u 
-^  a 

to 


:^?; 


« 


tc 


be 


-^-^f-oo©^ 

+j  05  ej-Ccc  o 


bt(D  O)  C  S^ 

;s§tca^- 
c  CT.S  a  1^  'd 


«  *  ^  OJ 


o  a)  ___ 
o  fc<     o  S 


a 


a 

^  "  a 


^2§«     ""B^ 


a  M  w 


«:§ 


^  ed  a 


&;si«=  a   .r> 


o  etf  t-  a^ 
w  O  es  cj 


o    > 


•S^^?^^^-o©   ,'O^-N 

^^«*-|+J^  4>^  bco;  Ui>.  t»  fc£-S  S  a^ 
a'O^n'^'ow  -a  ©o  Mmt; 
oiSS":;i"^aK.<i'«ajo^a>o2?3 

■ii>!j'ftc8r-/2o3.S(:S-<-<oS«wWO 

O         J-         — <   >i       ,— I        — <  ^^ 


Q    ;5u 


Ah     (^ 


APPENDICES. 


249 


to 

eo 

eoco«o 

W      O 

w                         t- 

CO 

to 

00 

ooco 

s 

s 

IfflTjIb- 

00      O 

lO                                    N 

rH 

o 

t- 

OOO 

i 

©OQO 

i  ^ 

§                                    i 

eo 

00 

rH 

o 

g^§§ 

iH 

rHrHiH 

rH       iH 

T-i                                                        M 

rH 

rH 

r-t 

C^y^t-i 

c^ 

cc 

rH       00 

05 

t- 

T-l 

^       <» 

im 

to 

(MC^O 

CO       O 

00                                    <N 

o 

tl 

2! 

®J25^ 

^. 

CO 

©ooo 

00       O 

05                                    ■* 
C4                                      iH 

CO 

CO 

05 

rHWCI 

d 

o 

05 

ooiooo 

t-     o 

00                              o 

to 

<=:j 

S 

ss?s 

o 

00 

«DT-ioq 

00      "^t* 

00                                      tH 

iO 

to 

100<N 

tA 

ci 

l«lrH06 

Tf       (N 

CO                                  t^ 

t^ 

rH 

t^ 

cicoN 

(M 

o 

T-l  CO  T-l 

la 

(N                                  VO 

05 

o 

b- 

'^    s^ 

(NrHCO 

05 

'^                                      iH 

-^JH^ 

r^ 

CO 

CD 

cf      tH 

tS 

l^ 

rH 

rH*" 

«D 

^ 

Q 

o 

OOO 

o    o 

o                        9 

o 

o 

S 

22S 

o 

o 

ooq 

o    o 

o                        o 

CO 

o 

05 

OOO 

d 

t^ 

cido' 

T-H     d 

tH                                            r^ 

rH 

CO 

d 

to  torn 

C<i 

■^ 

05W»H 

rH 

(N                                    l- 

o 

00 

to 

00      . 

tH 

OOtHI- 

05 

iH 

o 

00^ 

tH 

tH 

iH 

co- 

1-i 

rH 

<© 

rn 
eo 

o 

o 

OOLO 

05       O 

CO                                  O 

00 

o 

O 

222 

o 

o 

0  0(N 

(N      o 

CO                                 o 

lO 

o 

to 

OOO 

-^ 

CO 

rHOOi 

00       i-i 

to                          d 

tH 

CO 

00 

ddTjJ 

GO 

CO 

05 '^t^ 

tH 

t-                         »o 

(N 

CO 

CO 

tO<NlO 

Tt< 

r-i 

OOrHOO 

CO 

CO 

"^ 

rH 

■^^ 

c^ 

t-T 

rH 

1-^ 

T»r 

o\ 

CI 

05 

o^ 

ci 

rH 

~: 

^ 

h 

o 

to 

I'D 

O 

0) 

2J 

to 

to 

.  c 

O 

•     • 

Ck 

a 

iS 

o 
o 

<H 

•     • 

"O 

13 

•  a 

o 

o 

1=1 

a 

I'd 

.2 

O 

(M 

tH 

oi 

eS 

.  0 

eS 

a 

h 

pa 
III 

-^t-ItH 

c 

c 

05 
M 

ii 

per  pound  and 
cent, 
cents  per  gallon. 

cents  per  pound 
per  cent. 

cents  per  pound 
per  cent. 

c 

i 

c 

V 

.  3 

rOO 

0)  CO  5 

»o 

00 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

lO 

■* 

■^ 

iP2^ 

CI 

M 

(M<V&"VS- 

«« 

>■      09- 

»5 

€«- 

CO 

•* 

■* 

(MCOiN 

M  O 
a-  q 


Q)  (U  o> 

fi  >'d 

3  eS  . 
^  u  •:* 

~    I'd 


of-d     o  g-d 


05  O 

w^co 


.So 


<w 

o'd 

^§ 

o 

M  O)  S 

•dflg 


oajofl 
'd'S  .^-o  5j 

•gfl^atx) 
i'd^'dS 


<i>      lj  fli  rr  Qj  __  S;-..  (i> 


<=>    n     a-dgg^S 

ti     fl    .2*0  '"c^  ^ 
^     o     -M  ti  o  ft 

'S^  ^  -ii  a  '^'^  ® 

^^'gga^^a^-^aT 


-M  a  I 

-a  d 

fcCO   03 


-M         O 


^«M 


ftd 


^ 


a 


'd' 

0) 

.a 

^3 


Stt",      .ii  ^  -Q  *-• 


O^  02  2^ 


«d.2S„    ^^^ 
a- 


oij 


.-,   W    '-' 

2fl  d 


o.a«*^+j 


S**      5^^S 


ri  UijS  00  2  ^         a>  m  OJ 


•I'M  w  z: 


--,■     ^d-QiN'S 

O  -,  ^  en  a 


^-.2ci»'°02rt^^0     .   J- 

25      be  «S  -O  -H  _- fl  oa  fl  CO  -M 

*jaaj-*^t-'SCd'roJrt 
rt.Sc;K<^aog3>'bo3 


^'    ^^'d  ®  a  ^"^  ^-' 

-o    'd^o§^'S*ct- 

fl'ddS^^^'dfagp 
eJ     ^     Q     ffi 


aoa'g.S-g 
^^^S-dss 


^.ii^o 


oj  o  03:2  a  a; 
ti  ?^.i4— '  si  .a 

c  o^  cj'd' 


02  "» 

-H  a 

d  d 

oi  o 

^  ft 


'  'd 

<u  a 

"d  -M 

a  a 

>  -^i 

O  (U 

^  > 


o  ..  w 
'^'S'd 

feft  ..  . 

aj    ..Ji^-d 

oca'ag 

a^^ol 


:o 


•  a 
'.a 


a'o 


a«w 
d  o 

O+j 

ft  (-1   . 

ftH' 

•c     d 


<^^  a 
2  *^ . 

cnS  a 
a>  a  „ 


d  ^  ^  o  S  S  s 


250 


APPENDICES. 


1 
! 

UJ 

H 
O 
lU 

-I 
-1 
o 
o 

UJ 

oc 
< 

UJ 

> 

o 

o 

z 
< 

z 

UJ 

o 

UJ 
Q. 

o 

o 


6^t 

"goo 

•^ 

C^ 

-«*« 

eo 

IN 

05 

b- 

rH 

© 

■* 

'^. 

eo 

Tj< 

© 

«o 

OC 

t- 

rH 

© 

rH 

12| 

t^ 

d 

id 

rH 

© 

l^ 

1^ 

to 

•H 

b^ 

© 

© 

kO 

(N 

to 

C<l 

© 

^ 

CO 

CI 

© 

s 

.^^ 

tH 

tH 

rH 

r-< 

rH 

■H 

y-i 

rH 

rH 

H 

^ 

^go 

ft^ 

■!->     1 

lO 

<e> 

CI 

eo 

'^ 

eo 

T-^ 

00 

b- 

CO 

< 

«-s  fl  . 

o 

» 

^ 

00 

N 

(N 

CI 

eo 

00 

CI 

a 

Ig§& 

^ 

'^. 

*'. 

to 

e<: 

CO 

r^ 

r^ 

CI 

CO 

T-i 

^iS^ 

ao 

"~o 

-^ 

'* 

«o 

eo 

rH 

to 

5 

to 

'i* 

00 

Ol 

'*. 

t- 

to 

© 

to 

■* 

CO 

© 

t- 

00 

t 

r» 

1^ 

t-^ 

cl 

CO 

© 

ci 

ci 

© 

rH 

W 

o 

© 

© 

t' 

M 

to 

y-t 

to 

00 

CO 

00 

00 

(M 

rH 

00 

t- 

eo 

-* 

"*► 

2 

. 

to 

eo" 

-'l^ 

CI 

eo 

T^ 

eo 

00 

^ 

CO 

CO 

rH 

CO 

T^ 

cf 

"~» 

© 

© 

§ 

to 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

■* 

kO 

© 

00 

CO 

© 

© 

© 

© 

b- 

in 

t^ 

f? 

t^ 

t-^ 

Tji 

CO 

05 

05 

eo 

0) 

0) 

lO 

© 

'"t* 

05 

r^ 

00 

a> 

to 

fl 

la 

b- 

ia 

rH 

co^ 

tc 

a 

j-i 

r-l 

^. 

« 

Tf 

c 

(N 

05      ^" 

rH 

© 

1^ 

to 

'* 

to 

to 

r-i 

"* 

rH 

CI 

' 

"~o 

co 

© 

© 

c 

CD 

to 

© 

to 

© 

© 

00 

w 

t- 

o 

to 

c 

b-; 

t- 

to 

CI 

to 

© 

® 

(N 

05 

OS 

rA 

«c 

CO 

r 

1- 

05 

-^ 

CO 

!3 

(N 

Tt< 

t- 

rH 

<N 

CO 

© 

T^ 

to 

CO 

I- 

53 

c 

CD^ 

«D 

1-1 

r 

© 

oo 

05 

CO 

© 

t- 

a 

c< 

rH 

T-T 

t^ 

oc 

to" 

t^      CI 

" 

rH 

b-" 

"* 

to 

C 

o 

9 

(N 

c 

CO 

<y 

g 

' 

~c 

to 

© 

© 

c 

© 

•o 

■a 

© 

© 

-CJ 

M 

CO 

lO 

to 

ir 

to 

It 

to 

to 

a 

•O      13 

13 

■d 

-c 

"O 

»         "O 

•e 

C 

d 

a 

d 

c 

d 

d 

d 

si       09 

e) 

3 

CJ        d 

« 

OJ 

a 

eU 

9) 

^ 

u 

t^ 

U 

•o    "d 

•a 

•d 

'C 

-o 

« 

-M  « 

.      X} 

« 

S3 

p 

0     a 

d 

d 

e 

d 

fl 

rt  S 

*i     a 

d 

a-tJ 

'O 

9       S 

n 

d 

0"S  CTH         p 

a 

S'fl 

O       O 

o 

o 

6     o 

ID 

W  oc 

"  a 

o 

to    Q) 

"g 

O.      A 

a 

p, 

Q.      Ol 

P4 

o 

u  u  u 

tj 

u  . 

» 

t4           U, 

u 

h 

t. 

»4 

O  (K  4 

^      u 

u 

s| 

Si 

S^S.^ 

t^s.^ 

a+jE.4i 

°*'='0'a    S.^.^^ 

S  (^  3  >^ 

0) 

u  g  «- 

S  fc-  S  u 

81 

Og^(y  a 

O  «  fj  IJ 

.     ''K^'q, 

t. 

§  " 

^^s 

a    p 

CS 

CI      CO 

eo 

^ 

eo     ■* 

b- 

b- 

eo 

■^ 

rH  ~ 

W      CO 

eo 

■* 

eo     Tji 

eo 

■^ 

rH 

1 

3 

1 

5 

a 

^ 

• 

t4 

§. 

a 

1 

o 

.2 

t 

'm 

i2 

^ 

OB 

1 

d 

3 

•§ 

d 

s 

y^ 

s      A 

•o 

o< 

fi. 

Oj 

-»-> 

d> 

a 

y-^ 

DC 

•a 

5 

d 

a 

5 

^    S 

"3 

be 
4) 

1 

u 

:  a 

? 

^ 

c 

fl 

o 

d 

V 

■*j 

-M 

f» 

ni  y 

(4 

S 

A 

?. 

'C 

s 

l-H 

a 

ti-C 

^ 

d 
a 

0) 

5 

c 

u 

u 

p 

trf  o 

au 

a 

•o 

>> 

a 

2 
o 

^  a 

O 

a 

? 

sj 

© 
.a 

3. 

d 

1 

a 

o 

il 

Al 

i 

<1 

c 

s 

se 

c 

c 
'^ 

a 

(■ 
c 

£ 

1 

If 
is 

CO  o 

1 

O 

d 

•a 
d 
a] 

© 
d 

if 

1 

I 

t- 
a. 

c 

a 

C 
a 

li 

,1 

o 

d 

"§ 

ei 

© 
d 

ej 

2 

J5       ©OS      o"- 
-oot*,-©     to  a 

ilg§:l| 

/^    ED   >;    ►^  -(J           rf 

'  i 
'  1 

'C 

1 

u 

er 

C 

a 

-  ^i 

Is 

II 

o 

a 

o 
d 

-o 
d 

© 

II 
ll 
^1 

li 

o  o 

o  ft 

SI 

^§ 
1^ 

o  3 

1^ 

11 

r 

1" 

111 

--> 

> 

1| 

> 

^ 

;^ 

l^a§ 

^ 

s 

S 

p 

n 

1^ 

o 

k 

^ 

O 

0 

/2 

APPENDICES. 


251 


Ol  N  O  l-  ©  O  © 

lO  CO  N  ®  1-;  (N  00 

t^  eo  ©  9  ©  t^  bi 

»0  T-l  ©  ©  CO  ©  iH 

rt  rH  tH  iH  »-I  rH  1-t 


(M      © 

CO     \d 


t- 

t- 

\a 

tH 

<N 

o 

(N 

© 

© 

© 

(N 

r-i 

eo 

o 

© 

b- 

•»»< 

»!*< 

T}< 

-*  . 

00 

© 

lO 

00 

<N 

M 

© 

© 

"*. 

lO 

00 

© 

■*. 

© 

rH 

CO 

»ffl 

© 

t- 

'^ 

1o 

(M 

(M 

iH 

Tt* 

© 

(N 

CO 

CO 

t- 

OS 

© 

«N 

^ 

© 

(N 

t-; 

eo 

© 

la 

W 

rH 

lO 

© 

©' 

t^ 

t^ 

eo* 

© 

00 

rH 

© 

© 

eo 

CO 

© 

00 

t- 

© 

© 

00 

00 

C<| 

eo 

'^ 

eo 

© 

(M 

"^ 

© 

iO 

M 

t^ 

© 

© 

CO 

©^ 

CO 

rH 

® 

t- 

t^ 

»> 

w 

00 

rir 

t- 

t- 

© 

"* 

© 

T-i 

CO 

'<*< 

CO 

eo__ 

ci 

v^ 

(M 

© 

© 

© 

i-O 

© 

lO 

© 

© 

© 

to 

lO 

© 

(M 

© 

© 

© 

(M 

© 

t- 

© 

© 

© 

<N 

t- 

© 

© 

od 

eo 

(N 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

tA 

oi 

id 

M 

© 

© 

b- 

t- 

ia> 

»o 

(M 

(N 

eo 

CO 

■^ 

© 

»q 

eo 

tH 

ci 

t- 

00 

(N 

t-^ 

t-^ 

rH 

eo 

eo 

eo" 

eo 

\6 

cT 

I- 

T»« 

eo 

© 

•^ 

© 

y-i 

(N 

rf« 

CO 

eo 

c<r 

tH 

■* 

© 

© 

•* 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

CO 

\o 

<N 

© 

© 

la 

05 

\a 

lO 

iffl 

© 

© 

© 

© 

t- 

O 

c4 

ai 

00 

T-5 

(N 

IQ 

<N* 

.  rH 

© 

CO 

»o 

© 

© 

T-l 

a 

K3 

© 

t- 

t- 

© 

■* 

00 

.00 

o 

© 

CO 

eo 

rH 

o 

CO 

iH 

eo 

© 

-* 

T-l 

(M 

I- 

s 

rH 

©" 

(N 

t4 

(N 

©- 

©" 

©- 

b- 

■* 

\a 

© 

CO 

"* 

CO 

>* 

CO^ 

©" 

rH 

tH 

•o 

© 

© 

»o 

»o 

© 

~«r 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

3 

lO 

lO 

»o 

CO 

kO 

kO 

iO 

iS> 

\a 

© 

\o 

\a 

-o 

■d 

•o 

•d 

•d 

•d 

-d 

•d 

-d 

-d 

-d 

-d 

d 

Q 

d 

d 

d 

§ 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

(4 

cd 

a 

vi 

ej 

OS 

si 

m 

03 

03 

-O 

73 

t3 

1 

-d 

'd 

•d 

-d 

•d 

'd 

-d 

-d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

0 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

jj 

d 

3 

d 

j3 

d 

d 

^ 

a 

a 

a 

ft 

a 

a 

a 

o 

a 

a 

c 
a 

o 
a 

o 
a 

u 

t4 

u 

t4 

t^ 

ti 

bi 

u 

t-l 

aa 

ft*:  D.4J  a«- 

S.^ 

a^  a^  s^ 

a^-l^-a^ 

a^-l^- 

OS  to 

r  ceu 
ents 
r  cen 
ents 
r  cen 

«,« 

a  „ 

a     d 

-2 
d 
4; 

d 

ti  0^  »^ 

so 

g 

d     d 

a*® 

d 

0) 

SS3 

?,    tH    S    »-.    ?,    «-l 

H 

^  s 

cy-i3  o 

s 

X)  (y 

U  O  O) 

V 

cp  (y  0)  ^i  (U 

o 

S.S 

0)0  01 

t) 

Ojg  OJ 

a 

Q. 

a    a 

a 

a 

a^  a 

a     a 

a'y  a 

1-1 

eo 

■* 

•* 

CO 

•* 

■* 

■* 

eo 

Tf4 

•* 

eo 

Tf< 

r-l 

00 

T»< 

tW 

CO 

Tt< 

'-J* 

■<*< 

eo 

^ 

"* 

eo 

-* 

d  d 

08  d 

^  o 

■»-'  a 


•d  -d 

d  d 

d  d 

o  o 

a  a 


o3  ui 


d  d 
w  o 

fc.© 

a 

<«§ 

a)  w 

d-^ 

O  u 


S     a 


d 

O  03 

2  « 

g  a 


es^      -d 
CD  o        O 

d 


5?i 


a    «w ,  - 


© 

:a 

d) 

<m-> 

> 

>  o 

o  d 

Mt3 

d  o 

Tl 

^  3 

Ml  03 

<^ 

•z> 

a     «2 

»3        d 


55g 

-d  " 
•d  dTS 
a>  d  <i> 
d  o  d 


<u 


OS  d 

a>  eS 

0) 


f-_,    5 


4)©  O 

d"'  ^ 

d  d  fl 

O08  S 

'd  ja 


•^>       > 


frt  «  .  >  2  w  o 

Q  s  CO  d 

L,     d  d-w  o  a> 
cd  drj  dad 


^     ^ 


d>-     > 

a 

ai 


a     § 

o 
no         a 

If  I 

Sgsa 

d  tl  oj  ^ 
!i  a    ® 

^^afe 
jj  <i>  tl  > 

o©S-t-» 
-b-oo 

j;  od  a'd 
d«3 


g    1^1    -§ 

^  sag  Id 
a  l^:-a 

«s  Si  d  o  1) 

1       ^d'l>»0 

^     rt     S  ^  * 
S  ,  -d     ^ 

d      "ti  i  M  0353 

S       O  o  4; 

0)      -^  ..fn  03  d 
O  \^  tl  "d  ji:  "^  •*-• 

a-SssSag 
dga>§« 

4J  O  *" 

d  a 


^    5 


sa-g 
ft.. I 

o3 


a'd 

d 


OJ— .        — '- 


4)  03  O-H 


252 


APPENDICES. 


APPENDIX  B. 

OPERATIONS    OF    McKINLEY   TARIFF    BY    MONTHS. 

Office  of  the  Secbetaky  of  the  Treasuby, 
Division  of  Wabbants,  Estimates,  and  Appeopbiations. 

Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts  and  expenditures    of    the    United 

States. 


Source 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of  Oc- 
tober, 1890 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Month  of  Oc- 
totcr.  1889. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

Nat  onal  -  bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

$24,934,114.05 
12,840,250.54 

993.720.00 
1.447,809.70 

$91238,718  97 
49  730,301.50 

6,715,260.00 
6,942,864.18 

$18,815,040.44 
11,625,469.47 

$77,085,886.99 
46.356.007.00 

Miscellaneous  . . . 

2,052,097.73 

8,587.110.32 

Total 

40,215,894.29 

154,627,144.74 

32,492,607.64 

132,020.004.31 

expenditures. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National  lank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 


$11,542,447.85 

4,965,747.99 

2,471.248.56 

1,300,286.18 

11,097,474.24 


2.202.728.00 

4,312,965.93 

143.215.49 


$34,821,918.79 

16.130,568.89 

7.730.667.82 

2,286,799.74 

44,837,292.67 


6,093,928.50 

25.826.454.52 

8,451.635.39 


38,036.664.24 


146,159,266.32 


$7,441,648.22 

5,619,672.91 

1,773,957.01 

644,737.20 

4,694,404.96 


6,132,839.69 
2,291,537.72 


28,598,797.71 


$28,885,318.54 

20  381,720.42 

7,250,632.93 

2,669,613.23 

40.182,032.33 


16,426,296.86 
8,600,925.49 


124,396,539.80 


RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  .Tune  30, 
1890. 

Month  of  No- 
vember, 1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1890 

Month  of  No- 
vember. 1889. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 
National-bank 

$15,227,641.28 
11.322.047.31 

307.450.00 
2,128,986.12 

$108132,662.42 
62,078  611.99 

7,022,710.00 
9.735,658.74 

$16,614,488.23 
11,159,069.42 

$93,704,225.71 
57,517,783.85 

Miscellaneous  . . . 

2,943,409.49 

12,080,893.90 

Total 

28.986,124,71 

186,972,643.15       ,30.716.967.14 

1 

163,302,903.46 

EXPENDITUBES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

$8,771,335.85 

3,691,893.26 

2.321.959.98 

626,524.92 

21.511,161.49 

2,109,684.50 
3.537.462  40 

$43,593,454.64 

19,822,462.15 

10,052,627.80 

2,913,324.66 

66,348.454.16 

8.236,063.00 

29.363.916.92 

8,451.635.39 

$5,792,589.33 

3,245,263.04 

1,824.033.59 

757.857.27 

10,775,646.23 

774,069.74 

2,165.298.90 

$34,677,907.87 
23,626,983.46 

Navy 

9,074,666.52 

3,427,470.50 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion accoimt . . 

Interest 

50,957,678.56 
17,266,366.66 

Premium 

10,766,224.39 

Total 

42,570,022.40 

188,781,938.72 

25,334,758.10 

149,731,297.90 

APPENDICES. 


25J 


iwparative  statement   of   the  receipts   and   expenditures   of   the   United 
States — Continued. 

KBCBIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of  De- 
cember, 1890. 

Since  July  1. 
1890. 

Month  of  De- 
cember, 1889. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 
National-ban  k 

$16,104,533.09 
12,944,173.21 

263,875.00 
2,057,458.57 

$124,240,195.51 
75,022,785.20 

7,286,585.00 
11,793,117.31 

$15,925,107.32 
11,003.848.84 

$109,029,333.03 
68,521,632.69 

Miscellaneous 

2,666,548.33 

14,747,442.23 

Total 

31,370,039.87 

218,342,683.02 

29,595,504.49 

192,898,407.95 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National- b  an  k 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 


$8,362,245.00 

3,669,026.16 

2,163,809.76 

723,860.55 

2,653,515.94 


1,935,467.00 

470,621.74 

1,910,203.85 


21,888,550.00 


$51,955,699.64 

23,491,488.31 

12,216.437.56 

3,637,185.21 

69,001,970.10 


10,171,530.00 
29,834,538.66 
10,361,639.24 


210,670,488.72 


$5,577,342.65 

3,453,129.55 

1,646,953.92 

729,555.35 

10,322,384.73 


1,461,654.34 
2,692,958.86 


25,883.979.40 


$40,255,250.52 

27,080,113.01 

10,721,620.44 

4,157,025.85 

61,280,063.29 


18,662.320.94 
13,459,183.25 


175,615,277.30 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of  Jan- 
uary, 1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Month  of  Jan- 
uary. 1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund .  . 

$23,897,953.06 
11,253,863.80 

245,740.00 
1,658,416.39 

$148,138,148.57 
86.276,649.00 

7,532,325.00 
13.451,533.70 

$21,743,305.83 
10,034,688.12 

$131,372,638.86 
78.556.320.81 

Miscellaneous 

2,883,164.12 

17,630.606.35 

Total 

37,055,973.25 

255,398,656.27 

34.661,158.07 

227,559,566.02 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National- b  ank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 


$9,747,655.06 

4,450,327.50 

2,386.295.82 

963,690.10 

1,080,570.56 


2.461,760.00 

2,851,428.66 

39,581.37 


23,981,309.07 


$61,539,224.21 

27,938,204.23 

14,603,367.59 

4,602,007.62 

70,081.657.48 


12,633,290.00 
32,675,449.15 
10,401,220.61 


234,474.420.89 


$10,144,634.31 

2.859.904.57 

2,193,746.33 

480,596.99 

2,176,772.75 


7,916.800.22 
2,086,335.17 


27,858,790.64 


$50,342,288.07 

29,939,476.30 

12,911,435.51 

4,637.201.64 

63,455,71833 


26,577,996.45 
15,546,518.42 


203,409,634.72 


254 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  United 
States — Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

February. 

Since  July  1. 

February. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National  bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 

$18,994,189.72 
9,489,629.57 

338,146.00 
789,353.73 

$166,310,626.68 
96,478,005.79 

'  7,870,470.00 
15,184,875.47 

$18,966,505.50 
10,114,960.02 

$150,810,622.46 
89,317,749.81 

1.784.752.72 

20,326,554.31 

Total 

29,611,318.02 

285,843.977.94 

30,866,218.24 

260,454,926.58 

EXPENDITDBES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians! 

Pensions 

National- b  ank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$6,180,218.75 

2,841,729.84 

2,086,497.66 

667,113.25 

17,310.563.08 


2.279,340.50 
359.546.78 


31,725.009.86 


$67,719,442.96 

30,779,934.07 

16,689,865.25 

5,269,120.87 

87.392,220.56 


14,912.630.50 
33,034,995.93 
10,401,220.61 


266,199,430.75 


$5,069,175,491    $55,411,463.56 
2,433.849.08;      32,373,325.38 


2,058,749.89 

363,093.11: 

13,660,764.861 


14,970,185.40 

5,000,294.75 

77,116,483.19 


518,161.88i 
956,910.16; 


27,096,158.33 
16.502,428.58 


25,060,704.47;    228,470,339.19 


RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jmie  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jime  30, 
1890. 

March.            Since  July  1. 

i 

f 
March.            Since  July  1. 

i 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 

$15,373,522.85  $181,684,149.53 
11,206,723,41     107,684,729.20 

390,875.00      r  8,261,345.00 

$20,800,765.82  $171,611,388.28 
11,281,856.81     100,599,606.62 

2,447,209.201      17,632,084.67 

2,695.558.261      23,022.112.57 

Total 

29,418,330.46!    315,262,308.40 

34,778,180.89    295,233,107.47 

EXPENDITURES. 


CivU  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

$11,647,638.63 
3,707,580.96 
2,353,469.26 
1,120,046.85 
9,514,578.24 

2.440,204.50 
719,423.16 

$79,367,081.59 

34,487.515.03 

19,043,334.51 

6,389,167.72 

96,906,798.80 

17,352,835.00 
33,754,419.09 
10,401,220.61 

$5,467,121.75 

2,494,189.73 

1,682,097.65 

702,517.40 

3,854,915.10 

$60,878,585.31 
34,867,515.11 

Navy 

16,652,283.05 

jndians 

5,702,812.15 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 

tinn  np.foimt 

80,971,398.29 

1,339,299.79 
2,094,595.85 

28,435,458.12 

18,597,024.43 

Total 

31,502.941.60 

297,702,372.35 

17,634,737.27 

246,105,076.46 

APPENDICES. 


255 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts  and    expenditures    of    the    United 
States — Continued. 

BBCBIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30. 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of 
AprU,  1891. 

Since  July  1. 
1890. 

Month  of 
AprU,  1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund. . 

$12,591,990.18 
11,420,455.56 

580.000.00 
1,452,785.90 

$194,276,139.71 
119,105,184.76 

9,145,695.00 
19,084,870.57 

$19,907,466.60 
12,105,148.93 

$191,518,854.88 
112,704,755.55 

Miscellaneous  . . . 

2,004,425.87 

25,020,535.44 

Total 

26,045,831.64    341,611.890.04 

34,017,041.40 

329,253.145.87 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

$14,036,844.80 

4,263,705.37 

2,699,898.94 

771,451.98 

264,191.83 

1,540,686.53 
2,554,951.31 

$93,411,402.34 

38,749,792.29 

21,140,905.08 

7,159,347.71 

97,174,355.28 

19,196,671.50 
36,091,822.31 
10,401,220.61 

$7,915,315.97 

3,698,774.81 

1,921,907.74 

422,425.48 

9.614.610.49 

$68,682,311.17 
38,561,739.43 

Navy 

18,569,830.54 

6,126,559.34 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

90,583,210.88 

Interest 

5,660,971.85 
673,917.46 

34  096  372.44 

Prftmium    

19,270,941  83 

Total 

25,331,194.36 

323,325,517.12 

29,907,923.70 

275,890,965.63 

Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of  May. 
1891. 

Since  July  1. 
1891. 

Month  of  May, 
1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1891. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National  -bank 

deposit  fvmd. . 

$11,995,141.77 
12,232,704.18 

128,120.00 
3,061,459.99 

$205,731,913.13 
132.216,628.99 

8,970,065.00 
22,890,360.17 

$17,084,403.09 
16.392,161.43 

$208,017,572.19 
129,500,127.32 

Miscellaneotis  . . . 

2.002,987.24 

27,019,388.57 

Total 

27,417.425.94 

369.808.967.29 

35.443.551.76 

364,537,088.08 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

$10,132,414.20 

5,389,418.48 

2,751,875.11 

580,914.84 

8,519.169.53 

2,081,758.50 
316,534.49 

$103,543,816.54 

44,139,210.77 

23,892,780.19 

7,740,262.55 

105.693.624.81 

20,974,680.00 
36,408,356.80 
10,401,220.61 

$7,527,685.39 

3.721,044.60 

1,712,839.73 

352.742.86 

12,594,516.40 

5  is, 584.  i  7 

$76,209,996.56 

42,282,784.03 

20,282,670.27 

6,479,302.20 

103,177,727.28 

's4  find  QfiW  fii 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National  -bank 
fund    redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest 

Premium 

811,561.96|      20,082,503.79 

Total 

29,772,085.15 

352,793,852.27 

27,233,975.11     303,124,940.74 

256 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts  and    expenditures    of    the    United 
States — Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of 
June,  1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Month  of 
June,  1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund   . 

$14,168,745.47  $219,900,658.60 
13,726,652.43:    145,943,281.42 

89,900.00         9,059,965  00 

$21,641,827,531  $229,668,584.57 
12,641,939.21     142,606,705.81 

Miscellaneous 

Total 

3,736,451.61;      26,626,811.78 

3,263,125.11       30,805,692.25 

31,721,749.511    401,530,716.80 

1 

37,546,891.85:    403,080,982.63 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

! 

$6,595,523.30'  $110,139,339.84 

4,583,906.08       48,723,116.85 

2,222,318.26       26,115,098.45 

785,925.69;        8,526,188.24 

18,721,585.56     124,415,110.37 

2,274,868.50'      23,249,548.50 

718,844.571      37,127,201.37 

i      10,401,220.61 

$5,171,942.64 

2,274,377.02 

1,687,837.56 

231,667.94 

3,761,696.22 

$81,403,256.49 
44,-582,838.08 

Navy 

22,006,206.24 

6,708,046.67 

Pensions 

National- b  an  k 
fund,  redemp- 

106,936,855.07 

Interest 

1,513,861.94 
221,720.27 

36,099,284.05 

20,304,224.06 

Total....... 

35,902,971.96:    388,696,824.23 

1 

14,863,103.59 

318,040,710.66 

Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jime  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Month  of  July, 
1891. 

Since  July  1 , 
1890. 

Month  of  July, 
1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1889. 

Customs... 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund .  . 

Miscellaneous 

$15,468,153.91 
14,551,867.92 

142,100.00 
4,138,222.85 

$219,900,658.60 
145,943,281.42 

9,059,965.00 
26,626,811.78 

$23,953,386.00 
11,717,499.64 

303,750.00 
2,328,580.80 

$229,668,584.57 
142,606,705.81 

30,805,692.25 

Total 

34,300,344.68 

401,530,716.80 

38,303,216.44 

403,080,982.63 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

$12,321,541.13 

5,734,022.38 

2,233,716.07 

1,245,829.81 

13,663,326.43 

1,698,617.00 
2,822,598.31 

$110,139,339.84 

48,723,116.85 

26,115,098.45 

8,526,188.24 

124,415,110.37 

23,249,548.50 
37,127,201.37 
10,401,220.61 

$8,025,059.44 
4,185,165.12 

$81,403,256.49 

44,582,838.08 

Navy 

2,126,919.06 

262,074.98 

14,863,492.39 

303,750.00 

22,006,206.24 

Indians 

6,708,046.67 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion nppoiliit. 

106,936,855.07 

Interest 

7,232,108.73 

36.099.284.05 

2,054,379.44}      20,304,224.06 

Total 

39,719.651.13 

388,696,824.23 

39,052,949.16 

318,040,710.66 

r 


APPENDICES. 


257 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts   and    expenditures    of   the    United 
States — Continued. 

KECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Month  of  Au- 
gust, 1891. 

Since  July  1 , 
1891. 

Month  of  Au- 
gust, 1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  Ic 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 

$15,164,674.61 
12,501,829.02 

110,870.00 
1,107,477.47 

$30,632,828.52 
27,053,696.94 

252,970.00 
5,245,700.32 

$20,315,879.96 
12,557  852.20 

2,700,540.00 
1,033,177.30 

$44,269,265.96 
24,275.35184 

3,004,290.00 
3,361,758.10 

Total 

28,884,851.10 

63,185,195.78 

36,607,449.46 

74,910,665.90 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-ban  k 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$6,861,616.19 

3,590,617.41 

2,784,990.46 

737,505.54 

5.094,323.88 


1,200,536.50 
468,430.97 


20,738,020.95 


$19,205,285.96 

9,381,771.36 

5,018,706.53 

1,983,335.35 

18,757,650.31 


2,899,153.50 
3,291,029.28 


60,536,932.29 


$7,824,222.82 

3,326,672.31 

1,592,492.58 

166,726.02 

18,838,658.73 


1,849,219.00 

876,219.13 

1,729,849.72 


36,204,060.31 


$15,848,282.26 

7,511,837.43 

3,719,411.64 

428,801.00 

33,702,151.12 


2,152,969.00 
8,108,327.86 
3,784,229.16 


75,257,009.47 


BECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890. 

Month  of  Sep- 
tember, 1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Month  of  Sep- 
tember, 1890. 

Since  July  1 , 
1889. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund .  . 

Miscellaneous 

$14,120,940.30 
11,946,531.71 

835,693.00 
1,098,082.24 

$44,753,768.82 
39,000,228.65 

1,088,663.00 
6,343,782.56 

$22,035,338.96     $66,304,604.92 
12,614,699.21 1      36,890,051.05 

3,021,000.00         6,025,290.00 
2,133,296.38         5,495,054.48 

Total 

28,001,247.25 

91,186,443.02 

39,804,334.55 

114,715,000.45 

EXPENDITUEES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National  -bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest . '. 

Prem  turn 


Total. 


$7,292,546.11 
3,961,443.95 
2,580,157.68 
1,335,038.98 
6,682,878.75 


1,667.763.50 
414,972.22 


23,934,801.19 


$26,497,832.07 

13,343,215.31 

7,598,864.21 

3,318,374.33 

25,440,529.06 


4,566,917.00 
3,706,001.50 


84,471.733.48 


$7,530,030.09 

3,655,039.44 

1,551,013.72 

556,771.89 

37,977.32 


2,074,431.50 

13,410,000  86 

4,524,190.74 


33,339,455.56 


$23,379,312.35 

11,166,876.87 

5,270,425.36 

985.572.89 

33,740.128.44 


4,227,400.50 

21,518.328.72 

8,308,419.90 


108,596,465.03 


258 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts  cmd  expenditures  of  the  United 
States — Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Month  of  Oc- 
tober, 1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1891. 

Month  of  Oc- 
tober, 1890. 

Since  July  1. 
1890. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund. . 

Miscellaneous. . . . 

$13,980,687.43 
13,066,461.15 

111,990.00 
1,401,413.63 

$58,734,456.25 
52,066,689.80 

1,200,653.00 
7,745,196.19 

$24,934,114.05 
12,840,250.54 

993,720.00 
1,447,809.70 

$91,238,718.97 
49,730,301.59 

7,019,010.00 
6,942,864.18 

Total 

28,560,552.21 

119,746,995.24 

40,215,894.29!    154,«30,894.74 

1 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$8,983,729.89 

2,281,916.60 

2,383,305.58 

850,858.99 

10,976,593.69 


1,221,457.50 
5,174,405.77 


31,872,268.02 


$35,424,927.70 

15,619,071.55 

9,945.339.62 

4,211,286.61 

36,417,859.40 


5,788,374.50 
8,880,000.53 


116,286,859.91 


$11,542,447.85 

4,965,747.99 

2,471,248.56 

1,300,836.18 

11,097,474.24 


2,202,728.00 

4,312,965.93 

143,215.49 


38,036,664.24 


$34,822,118.79 

16,130,568.89 

7,730,667.82 

2,286,799.74 

44,837,292.67 


6,430,128.50 

25,826,454.52 

8,451,635.39 


146,515,666.32 


RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jime  30, 
1891. 

Month  of  No- 
vember, 1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1891. 

Month  of  No. 
vember,  1890. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund . . 

Miscellaneous — 

$12,659,039.01 
12,480,326.54 

114,275.00 
1,663,522.17 

$71,885,786.19 
64,630,234.87 

1,314,928.00 
9,981,352.52 

$15,227,641.28 
11.322,047.31 

307,450.00 
2,128,986.12 

$108,135,662.42 
62,078,611.99 

7,326,460.00 
9,735,658.74 

Total 

26,917,162.72 

147,812,301.58 

28,986,124.71 

187,276,393.15 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion accoimt. . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$6,072,845.14 
4,055,177.22 
2,684,497.01 
1,200,684.31 

11,783,598.71 


1,754,954.50 
359,245.41 


27,911,002.30 


$41,497,772.84 

19,674,248.77 

12,629,836.63 

5,411,970.92 

48,200,458.11 


7,543,329.00 
9,239,245.94 


144,196,862.21 


$8,771,335.85 

3,691,893.26 

2,321,959.98 

626,524.92 

21,511,161.49 


2,109,684.50! 
3,537.462.40 


42,570,022.40 


$43,593,454.64 

19,822,462.15 

10,052,627.80 

2,913,324.66 

66,348,454.16 


8,539,813.00 

29,363,916.92 

8,451,635.39 


189,085,688.72 


APPENDICES. 


259 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts  and   expenditures  of  the  United 
States — Continued. 


RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jime  30, 
1890. 

December. 

Since  July  1. 

December. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund .  . 

Miscellaneous 

$13,836,555.64 
12,427,046.73 

286,470.00 
1,382,913.36 

$85,722,341.83 
77,057,281.60 

1,601,398.00 
11,364,265.88 

$16,104,533.09 
12,944,173.21 

t  ■>.       m 

263,875.00 
2.057.458.57 

$124,240,195.51 
75,022,785.20 

7,590,335.00 
11,793,117.31 

Total 

27.932,985.73 

175,745,287.31 

31,370,039.87 

218,646,433.02 

EXPENDITUEES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

$8,342,679.75 
5,102,456.59 
2,427,108.94 
1,086,004.54 

13,140.769.05 

1,397.162.00 
325.708.80 

$49,840,452.59 

24,776,705.36 

15,056,945.57 

6.497,975.46 

61,341,227.16 

8,940,491.00 
9,564,954.74 

$8,362,245.00 

3,669,026.16 

2,163,809.76 

723,860.55 

2,653,515.94 

1,935,467.00 

470,621.74 

1,910,003.85 

$51,955,699.64 
23,491.488.31 

Navy 

12.216,437.56 

3.637.185.21 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

69.001.970.10 

10.475,280.00 

29  834  538  66 

Premium 

10,361.639.24 



Total 

31,821,889.67 

176,018,751.88 

21,888,550.00 

210,974,238.72 

KECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jvme  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jvme  30, 
1891. 

January. 

Since  July  I. 

January. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund . . 

Miscellaneous 

$17,459,285.74 
11,439,956.70 

159,250.00 
1,484,236,16 

$103,181,627.57 
88.497.238.30 

1,760,648.00 
12,848,502.04 

$23,897,953.06 
11,253.863.80 

245.740.00 
1,658,416.39 

$148,138,148.57 
86.276,649.00 

7,836,075.00 
13,451,533.70 

Total 

30,542,728.60 

206,288,015.91 

37,055,973.25 

255,702,406.27 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

$9,473,708.04 

4,067,179.34 

2.489,355.26 

950,365.05 

10,521,941.40 

1,488,172.50 
6,672,801.01 

$59,271,930.22 

28,842,751.63 

17,545,431.60 

7,448,175.76 

71,871,961.23 

m 

10,428,663.50 
16,238.680.75 

$9,747,655.06 

4,450,327.50 

2,386,295.82 

963,690.10 

1. 080,-570.56 

2.461,760.00 

2.851,428.66 

39,581.37 

$61,539,224.21 
27  938  204  23 

Navy 

14  613  367  59 

r  4.602,007.62 
70,081.657.48 

12,937,040.00 
32,675,449.15 
10  401  220.61 

Pensions 

National- bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion accoimt . . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 

35,663,522.60 

211.647,594.69 

23,981,309.07 

234,778,170.89 

260 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement   of   the   receipts   and   expenditures   of   the   United 
States — Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891 


Month  of  Feb  -! 
ruary,  1892.     I 


Since  July  1 , 
1891. 


Month  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1891. 


Since  July  1, 
1890.     - 


Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous.. . . 

Total 


£$16,782,419.95!  $119,896,874.59     $18,994,189.72  $166,310,626.68 
ri.  12, 189, 387 .36!    101,157,232.47!        9,489, 629.57j      96,478,005.79 


■     56,960.00 
1,727,137.26 


1,817,608.00: 
15,220,016.16 


338,145.001 
789,353.73; 


8,174,220.00 
15,184,875.47 


30,755,904.571    238,091,731.22       29,611,318.021    286,147,727.94 


EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians ; 

Pensions 

National-  b  a  n  fc 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$8,223,430.67 

3,072,548.00 

1,852,926.67 

■:.     487,763.85 

11.561.447.31 


$67,495,360.89 

31,915,299.63 

19,398,358.27 

7,935,939.61 

83,433,408.54 


1,519.333.50       11,947,997.00 
764,609.13;      17,003,289.88 


$6,180,218.75 

2,841.729.84 

2,086,497.661 

667,113.25 

17,310,563.08 


2,279,340.50 
359,546.78 


27,482,059.13     239,129,653.82i      31,725,009.86 


$67,719,442.96 

30,779,934.07 

16,689,865.25 

5,269,120.87 

87,392,220.56 


15,216,380.50 
33,034,995.93 
10,401,220.61 


266,503,180.75 


Source. . 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

March. 

Since  July  1. 

March. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National  -bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 

$16,415,312.33 
12,133,601.09 

212,200.00 
1,287,692.91 

$136,312,186.92 
113,290,833.56 

2,029,808.00 
16,507,709.07 

$15,373,522.85 
11,206,723.41 

390,875.00 
2,447,209.20 

$181,684,149.53 
107,684,729  20 

8,565.095.00 
17,632,084.67 

Total 

30,048,806.33 

268,140,537.55 

29,418,330.46 

315,566,058.40 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

$7,800,501.86 

3,434,574.96 

2,405,585.01 

957,119.43 

12,937,407.06 

1,205,372.50 
249,028.97 

$75,295,862.75;    $11,647,638.63 
35.349.874.59         3,707,580.96 

$79,367,081.59 
.34.487.515  03 

Navy 

21,803,943.28         2,353,469.26       19.043,334.51 
8,893,059.041         1.120.046.85i        6.389.167.72 

Pensions 

National -b  an  k 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest 

96,370,815.60 

13,153,369.50 
17,252,318.85 

9,514,578.24 

2,440,204.50 
719,423.16 

96,906,798.80 

17,656,585.00 
33,754,419.09 

P»^mium    

10,401,220.61 



Total 

28,989,589.79 

268,119,243.61 

31.502,941.601    298.006,122.35 

APPENDICES. 


261 


Comparative  statement   of   the  receipts   and   expenditures   of   the   United 
States — Con  tinued. 

EBCEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

• 

April. 

Since  July  1. 

April. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

rTatior;al-ba  nk 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneou?. . . . 

$13,709,989.18 
12,048,622.17 

417,130.00 
1,212,612.69 

$150,022,176.10 
125,339,155.73 

2,446,938.00 
17,720,321.76 

$12,591,990.18 
11,420,455.56 

580,600.00 
1,452,785.90 

$194,276,139.71 
119,105,184.76 

9,145,695.00 
19,084,870.57 

Total 

27,388,354.04 

295,528,891.59 

26,045,831.64 

341,611,890.04 

EXPENDITUEES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War         

$9,104,040.82 

3,600,098.06 

2,008,779.34 

876,017.86 

12,705,035.01 

1,038,445.00 
1,765,660.88 

$84,354,620.22 

38,950,557.81 

23,811,945.01 

9,774,110.85 

109,552,610.08 

14,191,81450 
19,016,898.73 

$14,036,844.86 

4.263,768.37 

2,099,898.94 

771,451.98 

264,191.80 

1,540,086.50 
2.354.951.61 

$93,411,402.34 
38  749,792  29 

Na\'y      ... 

21  140  905  08 

Indians 

Pensions 

National -bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account .  . 

7,159  347.71 
97,174,355.28 

19,196,671.50 
36,091,822.31 

10,401,220.61 

Total 

31,098,076.97 

299,652,557.20 

25,331,194.06 

323.325,517.12 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

May. 

Since  July  1. 

May. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous — 

$13,121,391.37 
13,050,106  75 

270,400.00 
2.056,900.33 

$163,264,538.64 
138,763,332.85 

2,717,338.00 
20,968,974.78 

$11,995,141.77 
12  232,704.18 

128,120.00 
3,061,459.99 

$205,731,913.13 
132,216,628.99 

9,273,815.00 
22,890,360.17 

Total 

28,498,798.45 

325,714,184.27 

27,417,425.04 

370,112,717.29 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

$7,972,853.30 

3,632.33907 

2,603,881.81 

542,253.72 

12,908,339.24 

1,022,684.50 
4,073,126.75 

$92,327,473.52 

42,532,896.88 

26,415,826.82 

10.316,364.57 

122,460,949.32 

15,214,499.00 
23,090,025.48 

$10,132,414.20 

5,389,418.48 

2,751,875.11 

580,914.84 

8,519,169.53 

2,081,758.50 
316,534.49 

$103,543,816.54 
44,139,210  77 

Navy 

23  892  780.19 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-ban  k 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 

Premium 

7,740,262.55 
105,693,524.81 

21,278,430.00 
36,408,356.80 
10  401  220  61 

Total 

32,755,478.39 

332,408,035..59 

29,772,085.15 

353,097,602.27 

^62 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement  of  the  receipts   and  expenditures  of  the  United 
States — ^Continued. 

BECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Month  of 
June,  1892. 

Since  July  1 , 
1891. 

Month  of 
June,  1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Customs 

Int*»rnal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund .  . 

Miscellaneous 

$14,618,495.37 
14,779,922.34 

260,500.00 
1,560,200.27 

$177,883,034.01 
153,543,255.19 

2,977,838.00 
22,529,175.05 

$14,168,745.47 
13,726,652.43 

89,900.00 
3,736,451.61 

$  219,522,205.23 
145,686,249.44 

9,363,715.00 
27,403,992.64 

Total 

31.219,117.98 

356,933,302.25 

31,721,749.51 

401,976.162.31 

EXPENDITDKES. 


Civil  and  miflcel- 

laneous 

War 

$7,606,018.09 

4,314,346.16 

2,760,368.30 

830,621.51 

12,122,095.44 

1,018,222.00 
288,962.75 

$99,933,491.61 

46,897,243.04 

29,176,195.12 

11,146,986.08 

134,583,044.76 

16,232,721.00 
23,378,988.23 

$6,595,523.30 

4,583,906.08 

2.222,318.26 

785,925.69 

18.721,585.56 

2,274,868.50 
718,844.57 

$110,048,167.49 
48  720  065  01 

Navy 

26  113  896  46 

Indians 

8,527,469.01 
124,415,951.40 

23,5.53,298.50 
37,547,135.37 
10,401,220.61 

Pensions 

National-ban  k 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 

Total 

28,940.634.25 

361.348,669.84 

35,902,971.96 

389.327.203.85 

■ 

BECEIPTS. 

Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jime  30, 
1892 

Fiscal  year  ending  Jime  30. 
1891. 

July. 

Since  July  1. 

July. 

Since  July  1. 

Customs '.  . 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous.. .. 

$17,205,153.00 
14,866,118.33 

257,025.00 
2,243,059.92 

$177,883.0.34.01 
153.543,255.19 

2,977,838.00 
22,529,175.05 

$15,468,153.91 
14,551.867.92 

142,100.00 
4,138,222.85 

$219,522,205.23 
145,686,249.44 

9,363,715.00 
27,403,992.64 

Total 

34,571,356.25 

356,933.302.25 

34,300,344.68 

401,976,162.31 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

$8,755,801.44 
3,565,087.62 

$99,933,491.61 

46,897,243.04 

$12,343,669.77 

5,791,153.95 

2,233,716.07 

1,245,829.81 

13,663,326.43 

1,698,617.00 
2,822.598.31 

$110,048,167.49 
48  720,065  01 

2,221,707.86 

508,614.79 

14,235,140.15 

915,430.50 
7,047.624.68 

29,176,195.12 

11,146,986.08 

134,583,044.76 

16.232.721.00 
23.378.988.23 

26,113,896.46 

Indians         .      .  . 

8,527,469.01 
124,415,951.40 

23.553,298.50 
37,547.135.37 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

10,401,220.61 

Total 

37,249,407.04 

361,348.669.84 

39.798,911.34 

389,327.203.85 

APPENDICES. 


263 


Comparative  statement   of  the  receipts   and   expenditures  of  the  United 
States — Continued. 

BECEIPTS. 


Source. 

1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

August. 

Since  July  1. 

August. 

Since  Jtdy  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 

$18,271,668.55 
14,063,459.80 

553,870.00 
1,143,930.18 

$35,476,821.55 
28,929,578.13 

810,895.00 
3.386,990.10 

$15,164,674.61 
12,501.829.02 

110,870.00 
1,107,477.47 

$30,632,828.52 
27.053,696.94 

252,970.00 
5,245,700.32 

Total 

34,032,928.53 

68,604.284.78 

28,884,851.10 

63,185.195.78 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$10,468,448.84 

4.239,044.31 

2.186,749.34 

737,644.41 

13.478,067.56 


640,525.50 
330,299.57 


32,080,779.53 


$19,224,250.28 

7,804.131.93 

4,408,457.20 

1,246,259.20 

27.713.207.71 


1.555.956.00 
7,377.924.25 


69,330,186.57 


$6,861,616.19! 

3,590,617.411 

2,784,990.46 

737.505.54 

5,094,323.881 


1.200,536.50 
468,430.97 


$19,205,285.96 

9,381,771.36 

5,018,706.63 

1,983,335.35 

18,757,650.31 


2.899,153.50 
3,291,029.28 


20.738,020.951      60.536,932.29 


RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

September. 

Since  July  1. 

1 
September.         Since  July  1. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund . . 

Miscellaneous — 

$17,209,947.88 
13,735,887.81 

43,650.00 
851.792.97 

$52,686,769.43 
42,665,465.94 

854,545.00 
4,238,783.07 

$14,120,940.30 
11.946,531.71 

835,693.00 
1.098,082.24 

$44,753,768.82 
39,000,228.65 

1,088,663.00 
6,343.782.56 

Total 

31.841,278.66 

100,445,563.44 

28,001,247.25 

91.186.443.03 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National -bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$7,641,351.04 

4,363,770.46 

2,586.788.07 

698,998.37 

12,654,367.13 


725,375.50 
247,148.17 


28,917,798.74 


$26,865,601.32 

12,167,902.39 

6,995,245.27 

1,945.257.57 

40,367,574.84 


2,281,331.60 
7,625.072  42 


98,247,985.31 


$7,292,546.11 
3,961,443.95 
2.680.167.68 
1.335.038.98 
6.682,878.75 


1.667.763.60 
414.972.22 


23,934.801.19 


$26,479,832.07 

13,343,215.31 

7,598,864.21 

3,318,374.33 

26.440,529  06 


4,566.917.00 
3,706.001.50 


84,471,733.48 


264 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement   of   tlw  receipts   and   ^penditures   of   the   United 
States — Coutinued. 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Month  of  Oc- 
tober, 1892. 

Since  July  1, 
18&1. 

Month  of  Oc- 
tober, 1891. 

Since  July  1, 
1890. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneou."?.. . . 

$16,366,558.62 
14,153,891.04 

547,598.00 
768.090.55 

$69,053,328.05     $13,980,687.43 
56,819,356.98'      13.066,461.15 

1,402,143.00            111,990.00 
5,006,873.62!        1,401,413.63 

$58,734,456.25 
52,066,689.80 

1,200,653.00 
7,745,196.19 

Total 

31,836,138.21 

132,281,701.65 

28.560,552.21 

119,746.995.24 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

$7,660,742.67 
3,515,426.40 
1,844,464.37 
1,332,315.81 

11,682,410.59 

693,288  00 
5,152,602.34 

$34,723,248.18       $8,983,729.89 
15,680,528.27'        2,281,916.60 

$35,424,927.70 
15  fi1Qn71  .'^5 

Navy 

8,839,32595         2,383,305.58         9,945.339.62 
3,279,379.59             8.50.85^.99         4.211. 2S8.fil 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest  

52,049,924.31 

2,974,619.50 
12,777,582.26 

10,976,593.69 

1,221,457.50 
5.174  405  77 

36,417,859.40 

5,788,374.50 
8,880,000  53 

Premium 

Total 

31,881,250.18 

130,324,608.06       31,872,268.02 

116,286,859.91 

!      Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 


Source. 


Month  of  No- 
vember, 1892. 


Since  July  1, 
1891. 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 


Month  of  No- 
vember, 1891. 


Since  July  1, 
1890. 


Customs !    $14,269,379.94 


Internal  revenue 

National-bank 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 


13,050,706.64 

54,750.00 
1,419,808.80 


$84,267,893.35     $12,659,039.01 
69,769,861.091      12,480,326.54 


1,456,893.001 
7,146,322.28! 


114,275.00 
1,663,522.17 


$71,885,786.19 
64,630,234.87 

1,314,928.00 
9,981,352.52 


Total 28,794,645.38 


162,640,969.72       26,917,162.72 


147.812,301.58 


EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War              .    . 

$7,796,814.98 

4,751,186.70 

2,736,096.15 

559,822.47 

13,431,871.00 

1,108,104.50 
364,986.98 

$42,520,063.16 

20,431,714.97 

11,575,422.10 

3,839,202.06 

65,481,795.31 

4,082,724.00 
13,142,569.24 

$6,072,845.14 
4,055,177.22 
2,684,497.01 
1,200,684.31 

11,783,598.71 

1,754,954..50 
359,245.41 

$41,497,772.84 
19,674,248  77 

Navv 

12,629,836.63 

5,411,970.92 

Pensions 

National -b  an  k 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest   . 

48,200,458.1 1 

7,543,329.00 
9,239,245.94 

Premium 

Total 

30,748,882.78 

161,073,490.84 

27,911.002.30 

144,196.862.21 

APPENDICES. 


265 


Comparative  statement  of  tfm  receipts  and  expenditures  of   the  United 
States — ^^Continued. 

RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1891. 

Month  of  De- 
cember, 1891. 

Since  July  1. 
1891. 

Month  of  De- 
cember, 1890. 

Since  July  1 , 
1890. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous 

$16,308,334.25 
14,843,836.27 

145,947.50 
1,914,793.08 

$100,576,227.60 
84,613,697.36 

1,602,840.50 
9,061,115.36 

$13,836,555.64 
12,427.046.73 

286,470.00 
1,382,913.36 

$85,722,341.83 
77,057,281.60 

1,601,398.00 
11,364,265.88 

Total 

33.212,911.10 

195,853,880.82 

27,932,985.73 

175,745,287.31 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National -b  an  k 
fiind,  redemp- 
tion account.  . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$8,675,317.07 
5,726,440.98 
2,547,072.71 
1,293,256.59 

14,942,108.41 


817,124.00 
275,803.82 


34,277,123.58 


$51,195,380.23 

26,158,155.95 

14,122.494.81 

5,132.458.65 

80.423.903.72 


4,899,848.00 
13,418,373.06 


195,350,614.42 


$8,342,679.75 
5,102,456.59 
2,427,108.94 
1,086,004.54 

13,140,769.05 


1,397,162.00 
325,708.80 


31,821,889  67 


$49,840,452.59 

24,776,705.36 

15,056.945.57 

6,497,975,46 

61,341,227.16 


8,940,491.00 
9,564,954.74 


176,018,751.88 


RECEIPTS. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1893. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Month  of  Jan- 
uary, 1893. 

Since  July  1, 
1892. 

Month  of  Jan- 
uary, 1892. 

Since  July  1, 
1891. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National -b  an  k 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous.. . . 

$21,102,476.50 
12,052.917.57 

206,920.00 
1,847,658.24 

$121,678,704.10 
96,666,614.93 

1,809,760.50 
10,908,773.60 

$17,459,285.74 
11,439,956.70 

159,250.00 
1,484,236.16 

$103,181,627.57 
88.497,238.30 

1,760.648.00 
12,848,502.04 

Total 

35.209,972.31 

231,063,853.13 

30,542,728.60 

206,288,015.91 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous   

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National- b  ank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account . . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$10,451,683.25 

4.270,785.65 

2,319,309.60 

1,167,567.03 

13.038,270.40 


901,929.50 
7,103,836.25 


39,253,381.68 


$61,590,496.33 

30,429,290.74 

16,441,957.41 

6,299,421.36 

93,471,182.00 


5,801,777.50 
20,521.935.31 


234,556,060.65 


$9,473,706.04 
4,067,179.34 
2,489,355.26 
•  950,365.05 

10,521,941.40 


1,488,172.50 
6,672,801.01 


35,663,522.60 


$59,271,930.22 

28,842,751.63 

17.545.431.60 

7,448,175.76 

71,871,961.23 


10,428,663.50 
16,238.680.75 


211,647,594.69 


266 


APPENDICES. 


Comparative  statement   of   the   receipts   and   expenditures   of   the   United 
States — Continued. 


Source. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1893. 

Fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1892. 

Month  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1893. 

Since  July  1, 
1892. 

Month  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1892. 

Since  July  1, 
1891. 

Customs 

Internal  revenue 

National-ban  k 

deposit  fund.  . 

Miscellaneous. . . . 

$16,936,395.28 
11,316,832.14 

•311,750.00 
1,444.914.81 

$138,615,099.38 
107,983,447.07 

2,121,510.50 
12,353,688.41 

$16,782,419.95 
12,189,387.36 

56,960.00 
1,727,137.26 

$119,896,874.59 
101,157,232.47 

1,817,608.00 
15.220.016.16 

Total 

30,009,892.23 

261,073,745.36 

30,755,904.57 

238,091,731.22 

EXPENDITURES. 


Civil  and  miscel- 
laneous  

War 

Navy 

Indians 

Pensions 

National-bank 
fund,  redemp- 
tion account. . 

Interest 

Premium 


Total. 


$9,322,334.69 
3,665,027.94 
2,836,969.00 
1,225,054.07 

13.494,663.26 


811,181.00 
322,224.04 


31,677.454.00 


$70,912,831.02 

34,094,318.68 

19,278,926.41 

7,524,475.43 

106,965,845.26 


6,612,958.50 
20,844,159.35 


266,233,514.65 


$8,223,430.67 

3,072,548.00 

1,852,926.67 

487,763.85 

11,561,447.31 


1,519,333.50 
764,609.13 


$67,495,360.89 

31,915,299.63 

19,398,358.27 

7,935.939.61 

83,433,408.54 


11,947,997.00 
17,003.289.88 


27,482  059.13     239,129.653,82 


APPENDICES.  267 


APPENDIX  C. 

YEA  AND  NAY  VOTES  ON  PARTY  QUESTIONS. 
REMARKS. 

Several  important  measures  were  passed  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress  without  a  division  because  they  did  not  involve  party 
questions.  This  is  true  of  the  free  alcohol  bill,  the  consular  re- 
form bill  and  the  naturalization  bill. 

The  Panama  canal  bill  involved  only  a  question  of  engineering, 
and  hence  the  votes  on  it  were  not  divided  on  party  lines.  Both 
Republicans  and  Democrats  declared  for  the  Nicaragua  Canal  in 
1892. 

WAS  A  NON-PARTISAN   MEASURE. 

The  pure  food  bill — 18  Democrats  voted  for  it  and  only  4 
against  it.  On  the  final  passage  of  the  Railroad  Rate  bill,  there 
was  no  yea-and-nay  vote  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 
(Record,  June  11,  1906,  p.  8781.)  Democrats  and  Republicans 
alike  voted  for  the  bill  after  the  Senate  had  amended  it,  though 
the  Democrats  thought  it  still  an  imperfect  bill.  Many  Democrats 
tried  to  amend  and  perfect  the  bill  when  it  first  passed  the  House. 
The  Democrats  also  voted  for  the  Statehood  bill  after  it  had  been 
properly  amended  in  the  Senate.  The  meat  inspection  amend- 
ment to  the  Agricultural  appropriation  bill  was  also  passed  with- 
out a  yea-and-nay  vote.  The  Democrats  favored  the  inspection 
of  meats,  but  insisted  that  the  packers  should  pay  the  cost  to 
police  their  wrongdoing,  while  the  Republicans  insisted  that  the 
Government  should  pay  it,  and  provided  for  such  payment  by 
the  law  as  it  passed. 

The  real  contests  of  the  session  occurred  on  the  several  amend- 
ments to  the  Railroad  Rate  bill,  the  Foraker  amendment  to  the 
Statehood  bill,  the  bill  to  pay  the  traveling  expenses  of  the 
President,  the  resolution  restricting  the  purchase  of  material  and 
equipment  for  the  construction  of  the  Panama  canal  to  domestic 
products,  the  ratification  of  executive  usurpations,  the  ship  sub- 
sidy bill,  and  the  amendment  to  the  urgent  deficiency  bill  abolish- 
ing the  eight  hour  law  as  to  the  Panama  canal.  The  votes  on 
these  party  issues  are  given  in  detail  below: 

N  YEA  AND  NAY  VOTES  IN  THE  SENATE. 

On  Ship  Subsidy,    Statehood    (Foraker  Amendment),    Railroads, 

Panama  Canal  Supplies,  and  President's  Traveling  Expenses 

and   Ratification  of   Executive   Usurpations. 

THE  SHIP  SUBSIDY  BILL. 

On  February  14,  1906,  the  Senate  passed  the  bill  (S.  529)  "to 
promote  the  national  defenses,  to  create  a  force  of  naval  volun- 
teers, to  establish  American  ocean  mail  lines  to  foreign  markets, 


268 


APPENDICES. 


to  promote  commerce,  and  to  provide  revenue  from  tonnage." 
This  is  the  title  of  the  ship  -subsidy  bill.  Thirty-eight  Republi- 
cans voted  for  it,  while  23  Democrats  and  4  Republicans  (Burkett, 
Dolliver,  La  Follette  and  Spooner)  voted  against  it.  The  vote 
in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas- 

-38. 

Aldrlch 

Clark,  Wyo. 

Gamble 

Long 

Piatt 

Allee 

Crane 

Hale 

McCumber 

Scott 

Allison 

Dick 

Hansbrough 

Millard 

Smoot 

Ankeny 

Dryden 

Hemenway 

Nelson 

Sutherland 

Brandegee 

Foraker 

Heyburn 

Nixon 

Warren 

Bumham 

Frye 

Hopkins 

Penrose 

Wetmore 

Burrows 

Fulton 

Kean 

Perkins 

Carter 

Gallinger 

Lodge 

Nays- 

Piles 
-27. 

Bacon 

Dolliver 

Latlmer 

Patterson 

Taliaferro 

Blackburn 

Dubois 

McCreary 

Pettus 

Teller 

Burkett 

Foster 

McLaurin 

Eayner 

Warner 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Fraizer 

Morgan 

Simmons 

Clay 

Gearln 

Newlands 

Spooner 

Daniel 

La  Follette 

Overman 

Stone 

• 

Not  Voting — 24. 

Alger 

Burton 

Cullom 

Gorman 

Martin 

Bailey 

Carmack 

Depew 

Kittridge 

Money 

Berry 

Clapp 

Dillingham 

Knox 

Proctor 

Beveridge 

Clark,  Mont. 

Elkins 

McEnery 

Tillman 

Bulkeley 

Culberson 

Flint 

Mallory 

Of  those  not  voting  Bailey,  Clark  of  Montana,  Martin,  Money  and 
Tillman  (Democrats),  against  the  bill,  were  paired  with  Alger,  Bever- 
idge, Cullom,  Dillingham  and  Elkins  (Republicans)  for  it.  (See 
Cong.  Record,  pp.  2536-7.) 

STATEHOOD  BILL   (FORAKER  AMENDMENT). 

On  March  9,  1906,  when  the  Statehood  bill  (H.  R.  12707)  was 
under  consideration.  Senator  Foraker  (Republican)  offered  the 
following  amendment: 


"Sec.  23.  That  within  thirty  days  after  the  approval  of  this  act  the 
governors  of  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Arizona,  respectively, 
shall  each  by  proclamation  order  a  special  election  to  be  held  on  the 
twelfth  Tuesday  after  the  approval  of  this  act.  Said  elections  shall 
be  conducted  in  all  respects,  including  the  qualifications  and  registra- 
tion of  voters,  and  the  result  ascertained  and  certified  as  near  as  prac- 
ticable in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  said  Territories,  respectively, 
governing  the  election  of  a  Delegate  in  Congress.  The  sole  question 
to  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  each  of  said  Territories  at  such  spe- 
cial election  shall  be  stated  on  the  ballot  in  substance  and  form  as 
follows :  " 

"Shall  Arizona  and  New  Mexico  be  united  to  form  one  State? 


I     I 


Yes. 


I     I 


No. 


"Electors  desiring  to  answer  in  the  alfirniative  shall  place  a  cross 
mark  in  the  square  to  the  left  of  the  word  'Yes,'  and  those  desiring 
to  answer  in  the  negative  shall  place  a  cross-mark  in  the  square  to  the 
left  of  the  word  'No'  in  the  form  above  prescribed.  The  governors  of 
the  respective  territories  shall  certify  and  transmit,  as  soon  as  may  be 
practicable,  the  results  of  said  election  each  to  the  other  and  likewise 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  if  it  appears  from  the  returns 
thus  certified  that  a  majority  of  the  electors  in  each  of  said  Territories 


APPENDICE8. 


269 


who  voted  at  such  special  election  voted  in  favor  of  the  union  of  New 
Mexico  and  Arizona  as  one  State,  then,  and  not  otherwise,  the  in- 
habitants of  that  part  of  the  area  of  the  United  States  now  consti- 
tuting the  Territories  of  Arizona  and  New  Mexico  as  at  present  de- 
scribed may  become  the  State  of  Arizona  as  hereinafter  provided;  but 
if  in  either  of  said  Territories  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  at  sueh 
special  election  shall  appear  by  such  certified  returns  to  have  voted 
against  the  union  of  said  Territories,  then,  and  in  that  event,  all 
succeeding  sections  of  this  act  shall  thereafter  be  null  and  void  and  of 
no  effect."   (Cong.  Record,  p.  3657.) 

Twenty-four  Democrats  and  18  Republicans  voted  for  this 
amendment,  while  29  Republicans  voted  against  it.  The  vote  in 
detail  was  as  follows : 

Yeas — 42. 


Alger 

Culberson 

Galllnger 

Morgan 

Spooner 

Bacon 

Daniel 

Gearin 

Newlands 

Stone 

Blackburn 

Dryden 

Hansbrough 

Nixon 

Sutherland 

Bulkeley 

Dubois 

Heyburn 

Patterson 

Taliaferro 

Bur'-cws 

Flint 

Latimer 

Perkins 

Teller 

Carter 

Foraker 

McCreary 

Pettus 

Tillman 

Clark,  Mont. 

Foster 

McCumber 

Rayner 

Clark,  Wyo. 

Frazier 

Mallory 

Scott 

Clay 

Fulton 

Martin 

Simmons 

Nats— 29. 

Alleo 

Clapp 

Gamble 

LaFollette 

Piles 

Allison 

Crane 

Hale 

Lodge 

Proctor 

Ankeny 

Cullom 

Hemenway 

Long 

Smoot 

Beveridge 

Dick 

Hopkins 

Millard 

Warner 

Brandegee 

Dillingham 

Kean 

Nelson 

Wetmore 

Burnham 

Dolllver 

Knox 

Not  Voting 

Penrose 
—18. 

Aldrlch 

Burton 

Elklns 

McEnery 

Piatt 

Carmack 

Burkett 

Frye 

McLaurin 

Warren 

Bailey 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Gorman 

Money 

Berry 

Depew 

Klttredge 

Overman 

(See  Cong.  Record,  p.  3657.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Bailey,  Berry,  Gk)rman,  McEnery,  McLaurin, 
Money,  Overman  (Democrats),  and  Piatt  (Republican),  were  paired 
for  the  amendment;  while  Burkett,  Depew,  Elkins,  Frye,  Kittredge, 
Nelson  and  Warren  (Republicans),  and  Clarke,  of  Arkansas  (Demo- 
crat) were  paired  against  it. 


ON   THE   BAILEY  AMENDMENT  TO  THE   RAILROAD   RATE 

BILL. 

On  May  10,  1906,  Senator  Bailey,  of  Texas,  offered  the  following 
amendment  to  the  Railroad  Rate  bill  (H.  R.  12987) : 

"Provided,  however.  That  no  order  of  the  Commission  shall  be  set 
aside  or  suspended  by  any  preliminary  or  interlocutory  decree  or  order 
of  any  court  or  judge."  ( Cong.  Record,  p.  6873. ) 


270 


APPENDICES. 


On  this  amendment  20  Democrats  and  3  Republicans  (Burkett, 
Hale  and  La  Follette)  voted  yea.  The  vote  in  detail  was  as 
follows: 


Yeas— 

23. 

Bailey 

Dubois 

McCreary 

Ilayner 

Burkett 

Berry 

Foster 

McEnery 

Simmons 

Hale 

Blackburn 

Fraizer 

McLaurin 

Stone 

LaFollette 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Gearin 

Martin 

Teller 

Clay 

Latimer 

Overman 

NAYS— 

Tillman 
54. 

Aldrich 

Clapp 

Fulton 

McCumber 

Sutherland 

Alger 

Clark,    Wyo. 

Gallinger 

Millard 

Warner 

Allee 

Crane 

Gamble 

Nelson 

Wetmore 

Allison 

Cullom 

Hansbrough 

Nixon 

Clark,  Mont. 

Ankeny 

Dillingham^ 

Hemenway 

Penrose 

Culberson 

Bacon 

Dolliver 

Hopkins 

Perkins 

Daniel 

Beveridge 

Dryden 

Kean 

Piles 

Morgan 

Brandegee 

Elkins 

Kittredge 

Piatt 

Newlands 

Bulkeley 

Flint 

Knox 

Scott 

Pettus 

Burrows 

Foraker 

Lodge 

Smoot 

Taliaferro 

Carter 

Frye 

Long 

Spooner 

Not  Voting — 12. 

Burnham 

Dick 

Warren 

Gorman 

Money 

Burton 

Heyburn 

Carmack 

Mallory 

Patterson 

Depew 

Proctor 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  6874.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Dick,  Proctor  and  Warren  ( Republicans ) ,  were 
paired  against  the  amendment,  and  Carmack,  Mallory  and  Money 
(Democrats),  for  it. 

CULBERSON   AMENDMENT. 

On  May  11,  1906  (Cong.  Record,  p.  6874),  the  following  amend- 
ment was  offered  by  Mr.  Culberson,  of  Texas: 


"Provided,  That  if  such  rate  so  fixed  by  the  Commission  is  in  viola- 
tion of  the  rights  of  any  party  in  interest  secured  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  the  party  so  affected  may  proceed  against  the  Com- 
mission by  appropriate  proceedings  in  equity  in  any  circuit  court  of 
the  United  States  of  competent  jurisdiction  to  enjoin  the  enforcement 
of  such  order  and  rate:  Provided,  further.  That  in  determining  what 
is  a  just  and  reasonable  rate  no  consideration  shall  be  given  fictitious 
stock  issued  by  the  carrier,  or  bonds  or  other  obligations  of  the  car- 
rier, issued  in  excess  of  the  fair  value  of  its  property:  Provided,  fur- 
ther, That  no  circuit  or  other  court  of  the  United  States,  and  no  judge 
thereof  in  vacation,  shall  annul,  restrain,  enjoin,  or  otherwise  inter- 
fere with  the  enforcement  or  operation  of  a  rate  and  order  established 
£(nd  made  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  provided  for  in 
this  act  until  a  petition,  declaration,  bill  of  complaint,  or  other  proper 
statement  of  the  cause  of  action  is  filed  in  said  court  or  presented  to 
said  judge  in  vacation  and  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is 
duly  and  legally  served  with  a  copy  thereof  at  least  ten  days  prior  to 
any  action  taken  by  the  court  or  judge  thereon  and  until  said  Com- 
mission has  had  opportunity  within  said  ten  days  to  answer  by  proper 
pleadings  and  present  testimony  in  like  form  as  the  complainants 
therein:  Provided,  further.  That  in  such  proceedings  either  party  to 
the  suit  may  appeal  immediately  and  directly  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  from  the  final  decree  therein,  or  from  any  inter- 
locutory or  preliminary  restraining  order  therein,  whether  granted 
during  the  term  or  in  vacation,  by  which  the  rate  and  order  so  estab- 
lished and  made  by  the  Commission  is  enjoined  in  whole  or  in  part: 
Provided,  further.  That  said  appeal  must  be  taken  within  thirty  days 
from  the  entry  of  such  order  or  decree,  and  said  case  so  appealed  shall 


APPENDICES. 


271 


be  advanced  and  take  precedence  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  all  cases  of 
a  different  character  therein :  Provided,  further,  That  the  circuit  court, 
or  the  judge  thereof,  or  the  Supreme  Court,  or  any  justice  thereof, 
may  direct  that  the  final  decree  or  the  interlocutory  or  preliminary 
restraining  order,  from  which  an  appeal  is  taken,  shall  be  stayed  dur- 
ing the  pendency  of  such  appeal." 

Twenty-eight  Democrats  and  one  Republican  (La  FoUette) 
voted  for  this  amendment,  while  50  Republicans  voted  against  it. 
The  following  is  the  vote  in  detail : 


Yeas— 

-29. 

Bacon 

Culberson 

LaFollette 

Money 

Simmons 

Berry 

Daniel 

Latimer 

Morgan 

Stone 

Blackburn 

Dubois 

McCreary 

Newlands 

Taliaferro 

Clark,  Mont. 

Foster 

McEnery 

Overman 

Teller 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Frazler 

McLaurin 

Pettus 

Tillman 

Clay 

Gearin 

Martin 

NAYS— 

Rayner 
-50. 

Aldrich 

Burrows 

Elkins 

Hopkins 

Penrose 

Alger 

Carter 

Flint 

Kean 

Perkins 

Allee 

Clapp 

Foraker 

Kittredge 

Piles 

Allison 

Clark,   Wyo. 

Frye 

Knox 

Piatt 

Ankeny 

Crane 

Fulton 

Lodge 

Scott 

Beveridge 

Cullom 

Gallinger 

Long 

Smoot 

Brandegee 

Dick 

Gamble 

McCumber 

•Sutherland 

Bulkeley 

Dillingham 

Hale 

Millard 

Warner 

Burkett 

DoUiver 

Hansbrougli 

Nelson 

Warren 

Burnham 

Dryden 

Hemenway 

Nixon 

Wetmore 

Not  Voting — 10. 

Bailey 

Carmack 

Gorman 

Mallory 

Proctor 

Burton 

Depew 

Heyburn 

Patterson 

Spooner 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  6875.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Carmack,  Gorman  and  Mallory  were  paired  for 
the  amendment,  with  Spooner,  Depew  and  Proctor  against  it. 


LA     FOLLETTE'S     AMENDMENT     TO     SECURE     DISINTER- 
ESTED ADJUDICATIONS. 

On  May  12,  1906  (Cong.  Record,  p.  6973),  Senator  La  Follette 
offered  the  following  amendment  to  the  Allison  amendment  which 
provided  for  a  broad  court  review: 

"Every  Federal  judge  who  owns  any  share  of  the  capital  stock  or 
any  of  the  bonds  of  a  common  carrier  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  or  wlio  accepts  or  uses,  or  who  procures  for  the  use  of  any 
person,  any  pass  or  privilege  for  transportation  withheld  from  any 
other  person,  is  hereby  disqualified  and  prohibited  from  hearing  or 
passing  upon  as  such  judge  any  motion,  question,  application,  pro- 
ceeding, or  from  presiding  at  or  hearing  any  trial  arising  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act." 


Forty  Republicans  voted  to  lay  this  amendment  on  the  table — 
to  kill  it — while  25  Democrats  and  2  Republicans  (Gallinger  and 


272 


APPENDICES, 


La   Follette)    voted   against  the 

motion  to 

table   it.    The  vote 

stood : 

Yeas — 40. 

Aldrich 

Burrows 

Dryden 

Hansbrough    Perkins 

Alger 

Carter 

Elkins 

Hopkins 

Piles 

Allee 

Clapp 

Flint 

Kean 

Scott 

Allison 

Clark,    Wyo. 

Foraker 

Kittredge 

Smoot 

Ankeny 

Cu)lom 

Frye 

Lodge 

Spooner 

Brandegee 

Dick 

Fulton 

Long 

Sutherland 

Bulkeley 

iJillingliam 

Gamble 

Millard 

Warner 

Burnham 

Dolliver 

Hale 

Nays- 

Nixon 
-27. 

Wetmore 

Bacon 

Culberson 

Gearin 

Morgan 

Taliaferro 

Bailey 

Daniel 

LaFollette 

Newlands 

Teller 

Berry 

Dubois 

McCreary 

Overman 

Tillman 

Blackburn 

Foster 

McCumber 

Rayner 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Frazier 

McLaurin 

Simmons 

Clay 

Gallinger 

Martin 

Stone 

Not  Voting — 22. 

Beveridge 

Crane 

Knox 

Nelson 

Proctor 

Burkett 

Depew 

liatimer 

Patterson 

Warren. 

Burton 

Gorman 

McEnery 

Penrose 

Carmack 

Hemenway 

Mallory 

Pettus 

Clark,  Mont. 

Heyburn 

Money 

Piatt 

.-• 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  6973.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Proctor  and  Warren  were  paired  with  Mallory 
and  Money. 

VOTE  ON  MORGAN  AMENDMENT  RELATING  TO  RIGHT  TO 
SUE   IN  THE  COURTS. 


On  May  14,  Senator  Morgan,  Democrat,  of  Alabama,  offered  the 
following  amendment: 

"That  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  as  depriving 
any  person  who  sues  in  his  own  right  and  name  from  instituting  any 
suit  under  its  provisions,  or  any  other  suit,  at  law  or  in  equity,  in 
any  State  court,  or  in  any  court  of  the  United  States,  against  any 
common  carrier."      (Cong.  Record,  p.  7017.) 

Twenty-one  Democrats  and  2  Republicans  (Piatt  and  Scott) 
voted  for  this  amendment,  while  40  Republicans  and  1  Democrat 
voted  against  it.    The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas— 

23. 

Berry 

Daniel 

Latimer 

Morgan 

Simmons 

Blackburn 

Dubois 

McEnery 

Pettus 

Taliaferro 

Bulkeley 

Foster 

McLaurin 

Piatt 

Tillman 

Clark,  Mont. 

Frye 

Mallory 

Rayner 

Clay 

Gearin 

Martin 

Scott 

Nays — 41. 

Aldrich 

Carter 

Flint 

Kittredge 

Piles 

Alger 

Clapp 

Foraker 

Knox 

Proctor 

Allee 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Fulton 

Lodge 

Sutherland 

Allison 

Crane 

Gallinger 

Long 

Warner 

Ankeny 

Cullom 

Gamble 

McCumber 

Wetmore 

Brandegee 

Dick 

Hansbrough 

Millard 

Burkett 

Dillingham 

Hemenway 

Nelson 

Burnham 

Dolliver 

Hopkins 

Nixon 

Burrows 

Dryden 

Kean 

Perkins 

APPENDICES. 

273 

Not  Voting — 25. 

Bacon 

Clark,   Wyo. 

Gorman 

Money 

Smoot 

Bailey 

Culberson 

Hale 

Newlands 

Spooner 

Beveridge 

Depew 

Heyburn 

Overman 

Stone 

Burton 

Elkins 

LaFollette 

Patterson 

Teller 

Carmack 

Frazier 

McCreary 

Penrose 

Warren 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  7017.) 
Of  those  not  voting,  Spooner  was  paired  against,  and  Carmack  for  it. 

LA   FOLLETTE  AMENDMENT   REGARDING  VALUATION   OF 
RAILROAD   PROPERTY. 

On  May  14,  1906,  Senator  La  Follette  offered  the  following 
amendment: 

"Section  7a.  That  section  19  of  said  act  be  amended  by  adding 
thereto  a  new  section  to  be  known  as  section  19a,  and  to  read  as 
follows  : 

"  'Section  19a.  The  Commission  shall  investigate  and  ascertain 
the  fair  value  of  the  property  of  every  railroad  engaged  in  interstate 
commerce,  as  defined  in  this  act,  and  used  by  it  for  the  convenience 
of  the  public.  For  the  purpose  of  such  investigation  the  Commission 
is  authorized  to  employ  such  engineers,  experts,  and  other  assistants 
as  may  be  necessary.  Such  investigation  shall  be  commenced  not 
later  than  July  1,  1906,  and  shall  be  prosecuted  with  diligence  and 
thoroughness  and  the  results  thereof  reported  to  Congress  at  the 
beginning  of  each  regular  session.  Such  valuation  shall  show  the 
value  of  the  property  of  every  railroad  as  a  whole,  and  the  value  of 
its  property  in  each  of  the  several  States  or  Territories  oi;,  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Every  such  railroad  shall  furnish  to  the 
Commission,  from  time  to  time,  and  as  the  Commission  may  require, 
maps,  profiles,  contracts,  reports  of  engineers,  and  other  documents, 
records,  and  papers,  or  copies  of  any  or  all  of  the  same,  in  aid  of 
such  investigation  and  determination  of  the  value  of  said  railroad 
and  every  such  railroad  is  required  to  cooperate  with  the  Commission 
in  the  work  of  the  valuation  of  its  property  in  such  further  particulars 
and  to  such  extent  as  the  Commission  may  direct. 

"  'The  Commission  "shall,  thereafter,  in  like  manner,  keep  itself, 
informed  of  all  extensions  and  improvements  or  other  changes  in  the 
conditions  of  the  property  of  the  said  railroads,  and  ascertain  the  fair 
value  thereof,  and  from  time  to  time,  as  may  be  required  for  the 
regulation  of  railways  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  revise  and 
correct  its  valuation  of  railway  property.  To  enable  the  Commission 
to  make  such  changes  and  corrections  in  its  valuation,  every  railroad 
engaged  in  interstate  commerce,  as  defined  in  this  act,  is  required  to 
report  currently  to  the  Commission,  and  as  the  Commission  may 
require,  all  improvements  and  changes  in  its  property,  and  to  file 
with  the  Commission  copies  of  all  contracts  for  such  improvements 
at  the  time  the  same  are'  executed. 

"  'Whenever  the  Commission  shall  have  completed  the  valuation  of 
the  property  of  any  railroad,  and  before  said  valuation  shall  become 
final,  the  Commission  shall  give  notice  by  registered  letter,  to  the 
company  or  companies  owning  or  operating  said  railroad,  stating  the 
valuation  placed  upon  the  several  lines  of  .road  and  classes  of  property 
of  the  said  company,  used  by  it  for  the  convenience  of  the  public,  and 
shall  allow  the  company  or  companies  twenty  days  in  which  to  file  a 
protest  of  the  same  with  the  Commission.  If  no  protest  is  filed, 
within  twenty  days,  such  valuation  shall  become  final. 

"  'If  notice  of  contest  is  filed  by  any  railroad  the  Commission  shall 
fix  a  time  for  hearing  the  same,  and  shall  proceed  as  promptly  as 
may  be  to  hear  and  consider  any  matter  relative  and  material  thereto 
presented  by  such  railroad  in  support  of  its  protest  so  filed  as  afore- 


274 


APPENDICES. 


said.  If  after  hearing  any  contest  of  such  valuation  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act,  the  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  its 
valuation  is  incorrect,  it  shall  make  such  changes  as  shall  make  the 
same  a  fair  valuation  of  such  property,  and  shall  issue  an  order 
making  such  corrected  valuation  final.  All  final  valuations  by  tlie 
Commission  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  fair  value  of  the 
railroad  property  in  all  proceedings  under  this  act.' "  ( Cong. 
Record,  p.  7011.) 

Thirty-nine  Republicans  and  one  Democrat  voted  to  lay  this 
amendment  on  the  table,  while  22  Democrats  and  5  Republicans 
(Elkins,  Burkett,  La  Follette,  Gamble  and  Warner)  voted  against 
the  motion  to  table.  The  vote  in  detail  as  it  stands  in  the  Con- 
gressional Record,  p.  7014,  is  as  follows: 


Yeas— 40. 

Aldrich 

Clark,  Wyo. 

Frye 

Kittredge 

Nixon 

Alger 

Crane 

Fulton 

Knox 

Penrose 

Allee 

Cullom 

Gallinger 

Lodge 

Perkins 

Ankeny 

Dick 

Hale 

Long 

Piles 

Brandegee 

Dillingham 

Hansbrough 

McCumber 

Piatt 

Bulkeley 

Dryden 

Hemenway 

McEnery 

Scott 

Burnham 

Flint 

Hopkins 

Millard 

Sutherland 

Carter 

Foraker 

Kean 

NAYS— 

Nelson 
27. 

Wetmore 

Bacon 

Clay 

Frazier 

McLaurin 

Teller 

Bailey 

Culberson 

Gamble 

Mallory 

Tillman 

Berry 

Dolliver 

Gearin 

Newlands 

Warner 

Blackburn 

Dubois 

LaFollette 

Overman 

Burkett 

Elkins 

Latimer 

Simmons 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Foster 

McCreary 

Taliaferro 

Not  Voting — 22. 

Allison 

Clapp 

Heyburn 

Pettus 

Stone 

Beveridge 

Clark,  Mont. 

Martin 

Proctor 

Warren 

Burrows 

Daniel 

Money 

Rayner 

~ 

Burton 

Depew 

Morgan 

Smoot 

Carmack 

Gorman 

ratterson 

Spooner 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  7014.) 

Of  those  not  voting  Carmack  and  Money  (Democrats)  were  paired 
against  the  motion  to  table,  and  Spooner  and  Warren  (Republicans) 
for  it. 

LA    FOLLETTE    AMENDMENT    TO    PROVIDE    EMPLOYERS' 
LIABILITY  FOR   INJURIES  TO   EMPLOYEES. 

On  May  14,  Senator  La  Follette  offered  the  following  amend- 
ment: 


"Section  20  (a).  That  every  common  carrier  by  railroad  subject 
to  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  liable  for  damages  for  all 
injuries,  whether  resulting  in  death  or  not,  sustained  by  any  of  its 
employees,  subject  to  the  pnovisions  hereinafter  contained  regarding 
contributory  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  injured  employee: 

"a.  When  such  injury  is  caused  by  a  defect  in  any  locomotive, 
engine,  car,  rail,  track,  roadbed,  machinery,  or  appliance  required 
by  said  common  carrier  to  be  used  l)y  its  employed  in  and  about  the 
business  of  their  employment. 

"b.  When  such  injury  shall  have  been  sustained  by  any  officer, 
agent,  servant,  or  employee  of  such  common  carrier  while  engaged  in 
the  line  of  his  duty  as  such  and  which  injury  shall  have  been  caused 


APPENDICES. 


275 


in  whole  or  in  greater  part  by  the  carelessness  or  negligence  of  any 
other  enij)Ioyee,  officer,  agent,  or  servant  of  such  common  carrier  in 
the  discharge  of  or  by  reason  of  failure  to  discharge  his  duties  as  such. 
"In  every  action  to  recover  damages  for  such  injuries  or  deuth  the 
court  shall  submit  to  the  jury  the  question  whether  the  employee 
injureil  or  killed  was  guilty  of  contributory  negligence  and  shall 
instruct  the  jury  that  if  they  shall  answer  such  question  in  the 
anirmative,  that  they  shall  then  answer  the  following  question:  Was 
tlie  negligence  of  the  employee  injured  (or  killed)  slighter  or  greater 
MS  a  contributing  cause  to  such  injury  (or  death)  that  the  negligence 
or  carelessness  of  the  common  carrier,  or  any  other  officer,  agent,  or 
employee  of  such  common  carrier?  And  in  all  cases  where  the  juiy 
shall  find  the  carelessness  or  negligence  of  the  common  carrier,  or  any 
other  officer,  agent,  employee,  of  such  common  carrier,  was  greater 
than  the  negligence  of  the  employee  so  injured  or  killed  and  con- 
tributed in  a  greater  degree  to  such  injury  or  death,  then  the  plaintiff 
shall  be  entitled  to  recover,  and  the  negligence,  if  any,  of  the  employee 
so  injured  or  killed  shall  be  no  bar  to  such  recovery,  and  in  all  cases 
under  this  act  the  questions  of  negligence  and  contributory  negligence 
shall  be  for  the  jury."      (Cong.  Record,  p.  7017.) 

Twenty-three  Democrats  and  5  Republicans  (Burkett,  Fulton, 
Gamble,  Kittredge  and  La  Follette)  voted  for  this  amendment, 
while  42  Republicans  and  3  Democrats  voted  against  it.  The 
vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas— 

-28. 

Bacon 

Clay 

Gamble 

Mai  lory 

Stone 

Bailey 

Culberson 

Gearin 

Morgan 

Taliaferro 

Berry 

Daniel 

Kittredge 

New  lands 

Teller 

Blackburn 

Dubois 

LaFollette 

Overman 

Burkett 

Frazier 

I^atimer 

Rayner 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Fulton 

McCreary 

Nays— 

Simmons 
-45. 

Aldrich 

Clapp 

Flint 

Long 

Pettus 

Allee 

Clark,   Wyo. 

Foraker 

McCumber 

Piles 

Alger 

Crane 

Frye 

McEnery 

Piatt 

Allison 

Cullom 

Gallinger 

McLaurin 

Proctor 

Ankeny 

Dick 

Hansbrough 

Millard 

Scott 

Brandegee 

Dillingham 

Hopkins 

Nelson 

Smoot 

Bulkeley 

Dolliver 

Kean 

Nixon 

Sutherland 

Burnham 

Dryden 

Knox 

Penrose 

Warner 

Carter 

Elkins 

Lodge 

Perkins 

Wetmore 

Not   Voting — 16. 

Beveridge 

Clark,  Mont. 

Gorman 

Hey  burn 

Spooner 

Burrows 

Depew 

Hale 

Money 

Tillman 

Burton 

Foster 

Hemenway 

Patterson 

Warren 

Carmack 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  7027.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Carmack  and  Money  were  paired  for  the  amend- 
ment, and  Spooner  and  Warren  against  it. 

ON  THE  ALDRICH    RESOLUTION. 

Purchase  of  Material  and  Equipment  for  the  Panama  Canal. 

On  June  2,  1906,  the  Senate  passed  the  following  joint  resolu- 
tion (S.  R.  GO) : 


''Resolved,  etc..  That  purchase  of  material  and  equipment  for  use 
in  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  be  restricted  to 
articles  of  domestic  production  and  manufacture  unless  the  President 


276 


APPENDICES. 


deems  the  bids  therefor  to  be  extortionate  or  unreasonable,  in  which 
case  bids  may  be  invited  and  contracts  awarded  for  material  and 
equipment  of  foreign  production  Or  manufacture  to  the  extent  of  the 
consumption  of  such  articles  that  may  be  required  in  the  construction 
of  said  canal."     (Cong.  Record,  p.  7957.) 

Thirty-nine   Republicans   voted   for   this   resolution,   while   16 
Democrats  voted  against  it.     The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas-- 

39. 

Aldrich 

Carter 

Foraker 

LaFollette 

Spooner 

Ankeny 

Clapp 

Frye 

Lodge 

Sutherland 

Beveridge 

Clark,    Wyo. 

Fulton 

Long 

Teller 

Brandegee 

Cullom 

Gal  linger 

McCumber 

Warner 

Bulkeley 

Dick 

Hale 

Millard 

Warren 

Burkett 

Dillingham 

Hansbrough    Perkins 

Wetmore 

Burnham 

Dolliver 

Kean 

Piles 

Burrows 

Flint 

Kittredge 

Scott 

Not  Voting — 34. 

Bacon 

Daniel 

Martin 

Rayner 

Bailey 

Dubois 

Money 

Simmons 

Clay 

Frazier 

Overman 

Stone 

Culberson 

McCreary 

Patterson 

Nats- 

TaliafeiTO 
-16. 

Alger 

Clark,  Mont. 

Gamble 

Latimer 

Nixon 

Allee 

Clarke,  Ark 

Gearin 

McEnery 

Penrose 

Allison 

Crane 

Gorman 

McLaurin 

Pettus 

Barry 

Depew 

Hemenway 

Mallory 

Piatt 

Blackburn 

Dryden 

Heyburn 

Morgan 

Proctor 

Burton 

Elkins 

Hopkins 

Nelson 

Tillman 

Carmack 

Foster 

Knox 

Newlands 

(See  Cong.  Record,  p.  7959.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Foster,  Mallory,  Morgan,  Carmack,  Tillman  and 
Latimer  (Democrats)  were  paired  against  the  resolution,  and  Pen- 
rose, Proctor,  Allison,  Heyburn,  Piatt  and  Hopkins  (Republicans) 
for  it. 


On  the  same  day,  June  2,  1906,  Senator  Bacon  offered  the  follow- 
ing amendment  to  the  Aldrich  resolution : 

"Provided,  That  in  making  said  purchases  a  larger  price  shall  not 
be  paid  for  any  such  article  of  domestic  production  or  manufacturer 
than  the  price  at  which  the  same  or  similar  articles  of  domestic  pro- 
duction or  manufacture  are  sold  or  offered  for  sale  in  foreign  markets 
or  for  export  to  foreign  countries;  and  for  the  ascertainment  of  the 
prices  at  which  articles  are  sold  or  offered  for  sale  in  foreign  countriear 
the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  is  hereby  directed  to  procure, 
so  far  as  practicable,  and  to  report  to  the  President  the  following 
information : 

"First.  What  articles  and  classes  of  goods  produced  or  manufac- 
tured in  the  United  States  such  as  are  required  as  material  and 
equipment  in  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  have  during  the 
year  ending  December  31,  1905,  been  sold  or  offered  for  sale  in  foreign 
countries  or  for  export  to  foreign  countries  by  the  producers  or 
manufacturers  thereof,  or  through  their  representatives  or  agents, 
at  prices  less  than  the  same  and  similar  articles  and  classes  of  goods 
were  during  the  same  period  sold  in  the  United  States  by  the  pro- 
ducers or  manufacturers  thereof,  or  through  their  representatives  or 
agents,  having  special  reference  in  said  report  to  all  classes  of  tools, 
machinery,  steel  rails,  cars,  engines,  dredges,  vehicles,  cement,  and  other 
material  largely  and  principally  required  in  the  construction  of  said 
canal  and  in  the  maintenance,  equipment  and  operation  of  the  Panama 
Railroad. 


APPENDICES. 


277 


"Second.  What,  separately  stated  as  to  each  class  of  goods  and  with 
specification  of  articles  so  far  as  practicable,  was  the  general  average 
during  the  said  period  of  the  comparative  prices  in  sales  in  the  United 
States  and  in  the  several  foreign  countries. 

"The  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor  is  further  directed  to  make 
said  reports  as  soon  as  practicable,  and  thereafter  in  the  year  1907 
and  in  each  succeeding  year  during  the  continuance  of  the  construc- 
tion of  said  canal  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  procure  the  said  information 
and  to  re])ort  to  the  President  concerning  said  sales  in  the  United 
States  and  in  foreign  countries  during  the  calendar  year  next  pre- 
ceding the  said  report."     (See  Congressional  Record,  p.  7943.) 

Fifteen  Democrats  voted  for  this  amendment  and  7  were  paired 
for  it,  while  37  Republicans  voted,  and  7  were  paired,  against  it. 
The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Bacon 

Clay 

Culberson 


Aldrich 

Ankeny 

Beveridge 

Brandegee 

Bulkeley 

Burkett 

Burnham 

Burrows 


Alger 

Allee 

Allison 

Bailey 

Berry 

Blackburn 

Burton 

Carmack 


Dubois 
Frazier 
LaFollette 


Carter 

Clapp 

Clark,    Wyo. 

Dick 

Dillingham 

Dolliver 

Flint 

Foraker 


Clark,  Mont. 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Crane 

Cullom 

Daniel 

Depew 

Dryden 

Elkins 


Yeas — 15. 
Latimer  Overman 

McCreary        Patterson 
Money  Rayner 

Nays— 37. 
Frye  Long 

Fulton  Millard 

Gallinger         Nelson 
Hale  Perkins 

Hansbrough    Piles 
Kean  Scott 

Kittredge         Smoot 
Knox  Spooner 

Not  Voting — 37. 
Foster  McCumber 


Gamble 

Gearin 

Gorman 

Hemenway 

Heyburn 

Hopkins 

Lodge 


McEnery 

McLaurin 

Mallory 

Martin 

Morgan 

Newlands 

Nixon 


Simmons 

Stone 

Taliaferro 


Sutherland 

Teller 

Warner 

Warren 

Wetmore 


Penrose 

Pettus 

Piatt 

Proctor 

Tillman 


(See  Congressional  Record,  p.  7952.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Mallory,  Martin,  Berry,  Pettus,  Carmack, 
Foster  and  Gearin  (Democrats)  were  paired  for  the  amendment;  and 
Heyburn,  Cullom,  Dryden,  Crane,  McCumber  and  Lodge  (Repub- 
licans) against  it. 

VOTE  ON  THE  BILL  (H.  R.  20,321)  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE 
TRAVELING  EXPENSES  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

On  June  22  the  Senate  passed  the  following  bill: 


"Bo  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  hereafter  there  may  be  expended  for  or 
on  account  of  the  traveling  expenses  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  such  sum  as  Congress  may  from  time  to  time  appropriate, 
not  exceeding  $25,000  per  annum,  such  sum  when  appropriated  to 
be  expended  in  the  discretion  of  the  President  and  accounted  for  on 
his  certificate  solely. 

"There  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  for  the  purposes  authorized  by  this  act 
for  the  fiscal  year  1907,  the  sum  of  $25,000."     (Cong.  Record,  p.  9224.) 


278 


APPENDICES. 


Forty-two  Republicans  voted  for  this  bill  and   20   Democrats 
against  it.    The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas— 

42. 

Allee 

Carter 

Gallinger 

LaFollette 

Smoot 

Ankeny 

Clapp 

Gamble 

Lodge 

Spooner 

Benson 

Crane 

Hale 

Long 

Sutherland 

Beveridge 

Cullom 

Hansbrough 

Millard 

Warner 

Brandegee 

Dick 

Hemenway 

Nelson 

Warren 

Bulkeley 

Dillingham 

Heyburn 

renrose 

Wetmore 

Burkett 

Dolliver 

Hopkins 

Perkins 

Burnham 

Elkins 

Kean 

Piles 

Burrows 

Foraker 

Kittredge 

Nays— 

Proctor 
-20. 

Bacon 

Carmack 

Latimer 

Mallory 

Pettus 

Bailey 

Clay 

McCreary 

Martin 

Simmons 

Berry 

Daniel 

McCumber 

Overman 

Stone 

Blackburn 

Frazier 

McLaurin 

Patterson 

Taliaferro 

Not  Voting — 27. 

Aldrich 

Culberson 

Frye 

Morgan 

Teller 

Alger 

Depew 

Fulton 

Newlands 

Tillman 

Allison 

Dryden 

Gearin 

Nixon 

Whyte 

Clark,    Mont.  Dubois 

Knox 

Piatt 

Clark,   Wyo. 

Fint 

McEnery 

Rayner 

Clarke,  Ark. 

Foster 

Money 

Scott 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  9238.) 


Of  those  not  voting,  Clark,  of  Mont.;  Dubois,  Gearin,  Money,  Mor- 
gan, Newlands,  Rayner  and  Whyte  (Democrats)  were  paired  against 
the  bill;  Alger,  Allison,  Clark,  of  Wyo.;  Dryden,  Flint,  Frye,  Fulton, 
Knox  and  Nixon  (Republicans)  for  it. 


APPENDICES. 


279 


YEA   AND   NAY   VOTES    IN    THE    HOUSE   OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 

ON  STATEHOOD   BILL   (H.   R.  12,707).  t 

On  January  25,  1906,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  the 
Hamilton  Statehood  bill  for  the  admission  of  Oklahoma  and 
Indian  Territory  jointly  as  one  State,  and  of  New  Mexico  and 
Arizona  jointly  as  another.  The  Democrats  opposed  the  bill 
because,  while  favoring  the  admission  of  Oklahoma  and  Indian 
Territory  jointly  as  one  State,  they  were  opposed  to  forcing  joint 
statehood  upon  New  Mexico  and  Arizona  against  the  ivishes  of 
the  people  of  those  Territories,  and  favored  the  plan  subsequently 
adopted  by  the  Senate  in  the  Foraker  amendment,  and  finally 
made  a  part  of  the  bill  as  it  became  a  law.  Many  Western  Repub- 
licans joined  the  Democrats  in  this  struggle  for  fair  play — "the 
consent  of  the  governed" — ^but  the  administration  secured  195 
votes  for  the  measure.     The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas— 

-195. 

Acheson 

Curtis 

Hamilton 

McCarthy 

Sibley 

Adams,  Pa. 

Dale 

Haskins 

McCleary, 

Smith,  111. 

Alexander 

Dalzell 

Haugen 

Minn.  Smith,    Iowa. 

Allen,    Me. 

Darragh 

Hedge 

McGavin 

Smith, 

Allen,   N.  J. 

Davis,  Minn. 

Henry,  Conn.McKlnley, 

III.     Wm.  Alden 

Ames 

Dawes 

Hepburn 

McKinney 

Smith,  Pa. 

Bannon 

Dawson 

Higgins 

Madden 

Smyser 

Barchfield 

Deemer 

Hill,  Conn. 

Mahon 

Southard 

Bartholdt 

Denby 

Hinshaw 

Mann 

Southwick 

Bates 

Dickson,  111. 

Hoar 

Martin 

Sperry 

Bennett,  N.Y.Dixon,    Mont. Hogg 

Michalek 

Stafford 

Bennett,  Ky 

.  Dovener 

Holiday 

Miller 

Steenerson 

Bingham 

Draper 

Howell,  N. 

J.  Moon,  Pa. 

Snapp 

Birdsall 

Dresser 

Hubbard 

Morrell 

Sterling 

Bishop 

Driscoll 

Huff 

Mouser 

Stevens, 

Blackburn 

Dun  well 

Hughes 

Murdock 

Minu. 

Boutell 

Dwight 

Hull 

Nevin 

Sulloway 

Bowersock 

Edwards 

Jenkins 

Norris 

Tawney 

Bradley 

Ellis 

Keifer 

Olcott 

Taylor,    Ohio 

Brick 

Fassett 

Kennedy, 

Olmsted 

Tirrell 

Brownlow 

Flack 

Neb.  Overstreet 

Townsend 

Buckman 

Fletcher 

Kinkaid 

Palmer 

Tyndall 

Burke,  Pa. 

Foss 

Klepper 

Parker 

VanWinkle 

Burke,  S.  Da.  Foster,    Ind. 

Knapp 

Parsons 

Volstead 

Burleigh 

Foster,  Vt. 

Knopf 

Patterson, 

Vreeland 

Burton,    Ohio  Fowler 

Lacey 

Penn.  Waldo 

Butler,  Pa. 

Fulkerson 

Lafean 

Payne 

Wanger 

Calder 

Fuller 

Landis 

Pearre 

Watson 

Campbell, 

Gaines, 

Chas. 

B.  Perkins 

Webber 

Kansas             W.  Va.Landis, 

Pollard 

Weeks 

Campbell,  0. 

Gardner, 

Frederick  Powers 

Weems 

Capron 

Mass.  Law 

Reynolds 

Welborn 

Cassel 

Gardner, 

Lawrence 

Rhodes 

Wharton 

Chaney 

Mich.  Lefevre 

Uives 

Wiley,  N.  J. 

Chapman 

Gardner,  N.J.Lilley,    Conn.  Roberts 

Wilson 

Cocks 

Gilbert,  Ind. 

Littauer 

Rodenberg 

Wood,  N.  J. 

Cole 

Gillett,  Mass 

i.i^Ittlefleld 

Samuel 

Woodyard 

Connor 

Graff 

Longworth 

Schneebeli 

The  Speaker 

Cooper,  Pa. 

Greene 

Lorimer 

Scott 

Cooper,  Wis. 

Gronna 

Loudenslager  Scroggy 

> 

Cousins 

Grosvenor 

Lovering 

Shartel 

Currier 

Hale 

McCftll 

Sherman 

280 

APPENDICES. 

Nays- 

-150. 

Adams,  Wis. 

Fitzgerald 

James 

Mondell 

Sherley 

Adamson 

Flood 

Johnson 

Moon,  Tenn. 

Sims 

Aiken 

Floyd 

Jones,  Va. 

Moore 

Slay  den 

Babcock 

French 

Jones,   Wash.Mudd 

Small 

Bankhead 

Gaines,  Tenn.Kahn 

Murphy 

Smith,  Cal. 

Bartlett 

Garner 

Keliher 

Needham 

Smith,    Ky. 

Beall,  Tex. 

Gurrett 

Kitchin, 

Padgett 

Smith,  Md. 

Bede 

Gilbert,   Ky. 

*   Claude  Page 

Smith,    Tex. 

Beidler 

Gill 

Kitchin, 

Patterson, 

Sparkman 

Bonynge 

Gillespie 

Wm. 

W.                N.  C.Spight 

Bowers 

Gillett,  Cal. 

Kline 

Pou 

Stanley 

Brently 

Glass 

Knowland 

Pujo 

Stephens 

Broocks,  Tex.Goebel 

Lamb 

Rainey 

Tex. 

Brown 

Goldfogle 

Lee 

Randell,  Tex.  Sullivan, 

Brundige 

Goulden 

Legare 

Ransdell,   La 

L.                Mass. 

Burgess 

Granger 

Lester 

Reeder 

Swanson 

Burleson 

Gregg 

Lever 

Reid 

Talbott 

Burnett 

Griggs 

Lewis 

Rhinock 

Taylor,   Ala. 

Butler,  Tenn.Gudger 

Lindsay 

Richardson, 

Thomas,  N.  C. 

Calderhead 

Hay 

Livingston 

Ala.  Thomas,  0. 

Candler 

Hayes 

Lloyd 

Richardson, 

Towne 

Clark,   Mo. 

Heflin 

Loud 

Ky.  Trimble 

Clayton 

Henry,    Tex. 

McCreary, 

Rixey 

Underwood 

Cushman 

Hermann 

Pa.  Robertson, 

Wachter 

Davey,  La. 

Hopkins 

McKinley, 

La.  Wallace 

Davidson 

Houston 

Cal.  Robinson, 

Watkins 

Davis,  W.  Va.  Howard 

McLain 

Ark.  Webb 

De  Armond 

Howell,  UtahMcNary 

Rucker 

Weisse 

Dixon,  Ind. 

Humphrey 

Macon 

Ruppert 

Wiley,  Ala. 

Ellerbe 

Wash.  Marshall 

Russell 

Williams 

Each 

Humphreys, 

Maynard 

Ryan 

Wood,   Mo. 

Field 

Miss.  Meyer 

Shackelford 

FInley 

Hunt 

Minor 

Sheppard 

Answered  Pbbsent — 8. 
Andrus  Clark,  Fla.      McMorran       Patterson,       Wadsworth 

Brooks,  Cal.  Crumpacker    Otjen  S.  C. 


Not  Votin 

G— 33. 

Bell,  Ga. 

Fordney 

Ketchman 

Prince 

Van  Duzer 

Bowie 

Garber 

Lamar 

Slemp 

Williamson 

Brussard 

Graham 

Lilley,  Pa. 

Smith, 

Young 

Burton,  Del. 

Hardwick 

Little 

Samuel  W 

.Zenor. 

Byrd 

Hearst 

McDermott 

Southall 

Castor 

Hill,  Miss. 

McLachlan 

Sullivan, 

Cockman 

Hitt 

Patterson, 

N. 

Y. 

Cromer 

Kennedy,  0. 

Tenn.  Sulzer 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  1557.) 

Of  those  not  voting,  Patterson,  of  S.  C,  Bell,  of  Ga.,  Zenor,  Hard- 
wick, Garber.  Bowie,  Southall,  Little,  Byrd,  Clark,  of  Fla.,  Hill,  of 
Miss.,  Sulzer  and  Van  Duzer  (Democrats)  were  paired  against  the 
bill ;  and  Cromer,  Burton,  of  Del.,  Crumpacker,  Scott,  Ketcham,  Wads- 
worth,  Prince,  Slemp,  Samuel  W.  Smith,  Lilley,  Hitt,  Andrus  and 
Graham    (Republicans)   were  paired  for  it. 


Note — On  March  9,  the  Senate  adopted  the  Foraker  amendment  ( see 
vote  on  Statehood  in  Senate  elsewhere  in  this  book)  ;  and  on  March  22, 
the  House  by  a  vote  of  175  to  156  disagreed  to  the  Senate  amendments 
(see  Cong.  Record,  p.  4229).  But  later  the  Democrats  by  practically 
blocking  legislation  on  other  matters,  compelled  the  Republican  ma- 
jority to  accept  tliem  ( see  Record,  p.  8781 ) .  There  was  no  yea-and-nay 
vote  on  agreeing  to  the  second  conference  report. 


APPENDICES. 


281 


ON    THE    RESOLUTION    (H.    RES.   159)    RELATING   TO   THE 

EIGHT-HOUR    LAW,   THE    ALIEN    CONTRACT    LABOR 

LAW    AND    THE    CHINESE    EXCLUSION    ACT. 

On  January  26,  1906,  the  House  of  Representatives  in  conform- 
ity with  a  report  from  the  Committee  on  Rules,  passed  the 
following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  shall  be  in  order  to  offer  as  an  amendment  to 
the  urgent  deficiency  bill  (H.  R.  12320),  either  in  the  House  or  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  even  although 
the  paragraph  to  which  it  is  germane  may  have  been  passed,  the  fol- 
lowing amendment: 

"  'The  provisions  of  the  act  entitled  "An  act  relating  to  the  limita- 
tions of  the  hours  of  daily  service  of  laborers  and  mechanics  employed 
upon  the  public  works  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,"  approved  August  1,  1892,  shall  not  apply  to  alien  laborers 
employed  in  the  construction  of  the  isthmian  canal  within  the  Canal 
Zone.'"  (Cong.  Record,  p.  1587.) 

Upon  this  resolution,  the  previous  question  was  ordered,  and 
it  was  passed  by  a  party  vote,  the  Republicans  voting  for  it  and 
the  Democrats  against  it.  The  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  was  as  follows: 


Yeas- 

-145. 

Acheson 

Cousins 

Gillett,  Mass.  Loud 

Sibley 

Adams,  Pa. 

Currier 

Graff 

Loudenslager  Slemp 

Alexander 

Cushman 

Grosvenor 

McCarthy 

Smith,  Cal. 

Ames 

Dalzeli 

Hale 

McCreary 

Smith,    Iowa. 

Bannon 

Darragh 

Hamilton 

Minn.  Smyser 

Bates 

Davidson 

Haskins 

McKinley, 

111.  Southard 

Beidler 

Dawes 

Haugen 

McMorran 

Southwick 

Bennett,  N.  Y.Dawson 

Hayes 

Mahon 

Sperry 

Bennett,  Ky. 

Deemer 

Henry,   Conn,  Mann 

Sterling 

Blrdsall 

Denby 

Hepburn 

Minor 

Stevens, 

Bishop 

Draper 

Higgins 

Mouser 

Minn. 

Blackburn 

Dresser 

Hill,  Conn. 

Miidd 

Sulloway 

Bonynge 

Driscoll 

Hoar 

Needham 

Tawney 

Boutell 

Dwight 

Hubbard 

Nevin 

Taylor,   Ohio. 

Bowersock 

Edwards 

Huff 

Norris 

Thomas,  0. 

Brick 

Ellis 

Humphrey 

Olcott 

Tirrell 

Brown 

Esch 

Wash.Otjen 

Tyndall 

Brownlow 

Fassett 

Jones,    Wash.  Overstreet 

Underwood 

Burke,  Pa. 

Flack 

Keifer 

Palmer 

Volstead 

Burke,  S.  D. 

Fletcher 

Kinkaid 

Parker 

Vreeland 

Burleigh 

Foss 

Knapp 

Payne 

Waldo 

Burton,  0. 

Foster,    Ind. 

Knowland 

Perkins 

Wagner 

Calderhead 

Foster,  Vt. 

Lacey 

Pollard 

Weeks 

Campbell,  0. 

Fowler 

Landis 

Powers 

Weems 

Capron 

French 

Chas. 

B.  Reeder 

Welborn 

Cassel 

Fuller 

Landis, 

Rhodes 

Wilson 

Chaney 

Gaines, 

Frederick.  Rives 

Woody  a  rd 

Chapman 

W.  Va.LeFevre 

Roberts 

Young 

Cocks 

Gardner, 

Littauer 

Samuel 

Cole 

Mlch.Littlefleld 

Sci-oggy 

Conner 

Gardner,  MasLongworth 

Shartel 

282 


APPENDICBS. 


3n 

,^P,Ni.YS- 

-1^2.    ,^o\ru 

Joe^iR  ? 

Adamson 

Fitzgerald 

kl'tchin. 

Randell,  Tex.  Smith,  Md. 

Aiken 

Flood 

Wm.  W.Ransdell,   La 

.  Sparkman 

Bankhead 

Floyd 

Kline 

Bhinock 

Spight 

Bartlett 

Garner 

Liamar 

Richardson, 

Stephens, 

Beall,  Tex. 

Garrett 

Lee 

Ala 

Tex. 

Bowers 

Gillespie 

Lever 

Richardson, 

Sullivan, 

Broocks,  Tex.  Greene 

Lewis 

Ky 

Mass. 

Brundige 

Gregg 

Livingston 

Rixey 

Taylor,  Ala. 

Burgess 

Griggs 

Lloyd 

Robertson, 

Thomas,  N.  C. 

Burnett 

Hay 

McCall 

La.  Towne 

Candler 

Heflin 

McGavin 

Robinson, 

Townsend 

Clark,  Fla. 

Henry,   Tex. 

McLain 

Ark.  Trimble 

Clark,  Mo. 

Hogg 

McNary 

Rodenberg 

Wallace 

Clayton 

Hopkins 

Macon 

Rucker 

Watkins 

Cooper,  Wis. 

Houston 

Maynard 

Russell 

Webb 

Davey,   La. 

Humphreys, 

Meyer 

Ryan 

Weisse 

Davis,  W.  Va 

L.                 Miss.  Moon,  Tenn 

.    Shackelford 

Wharton 

DeArmond, 

Hunt 

Moore 

Sheppard 

Wiley,  Ala. 

Dickson,  111. 

James 

Murdock 

Sherley 

Williams 

Dixon,  Ind. 

Jones,  Va. 

Padgett 

Sims 

Ellerbe 

Keliher 

Page 

Smith,  Ky. 

Field 

Kitchin, 

Pou 

Smith,   Pa. 

Finley 

Claude  Uainey 

Smith,  Tex. 

Answered   Peesent — 8. 
Andrus  Crumpacker    Olmstead         Reid 

Burton,  Del.  Goulden  Patterson,       Scott 

S.  C. 


Not  Voting — 130. 

Adams,  Wis. 

Dovener 

Howell, 

McKinley, 

Smith, 

Allen,  Me. 

Dunwell 

Utah                  Cal.       Samuel  W. 

Allen,  N.  J. 

Fordney 

Hughes 

McKinney 

Smith, 

Babcock 

Fulkerson, 

Hull 

McLachlan 

Wm.  Alden 

Barchfeld 

Gaines, 

Jenkins 

Madden 

Snapp 

Bartholdt 

Tenn.  Johnson 

Marshall 

Southall 

Bede 

Garner 

Kahn 

Martin 

Stafford 

Bell,  Ga. 

Gardner, 

Kennedy, 

Michalek 

Stanley 

Bingham 

N.  . 

J.                  Neb.  Miller 

Steenerson 

Bowie 

Gilbert,  Ind. 

Kennedy, 

Mondell 

Sullivan, 

Bradley 

Gilbert,  Ky. 

Ohio  Moon,  Pa. 

N.Y. 

Brantley 

Gill 

Ketcham 

Morrell 

Sulzer 

Brooks,   Col. 

Gillett,  Cal. 

Klepper 

Murphy 

Swanson 

Broussard 

Glass 

Knopf 

Parsons 

Talbott 

Buckman 

Goebel 

Lafean 

Patterson, 

Van  Duzer 

Burleson 

Goldfogle 

Lamb 

N. 

C.Van  Winkle 

Butler,  Pa. 

Graham 

Law 

Patterson, 

Wachter 

Butler,  Tenn.  Granger 

Lawrence 

Pa.Wadsworth 

Byrd 

Gronna 

Legare 

Patterson, 

Watson 

Calder 

Gudger 

Lester 

Tenn.  Webber 

Campbell, 

Hardwick 

Lilley,  Conn. 

Pearre 

Wiley,  N.  J. 

Kan.  Hearst 

Lilley,  Pa. 

Prince 

Williamson 

Castor 

Hedge 

Lindsay 

Pujo 

Wood,  Mo. 

Cockran 

Hermann 

Little 

Reynolds 

Wood,  N..J. 

Cooper,  Pa. 

Hill,  Miss. 

Lorimer 

Ruppert 

Zenor 

Cromer 

Hinshaw 

Lovering 

Schneebell 

Curtis 

Hitt 

McCreary, 

Sherman 

Dale 

Holliday 

Pa.  Slayden 

Davis,    Minn.  Howard 

McDermott 

Small 

Dixon,    Mont.  Howell,  N. 

J. 

Smith,  111. 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  1592.) 


APPENDICES. 


283 


Pairs    For    The    Resolution. 

Sherman 

Hitt 

Bartholdt        Cassel              Bradley 

Morrell 

Ketcham 

Kennedy,  0.  Dunwell           Calder 

ratterson, 

Wadsworth 

Jenkins            Andrews          Watson 

Pa.LilIey,  Conn. 

Bede                McCreary, 

Butler,  Pa. 

Wachter 

Bingham                            Pa. 

Cromer 

Lovering 

Barchfield       Pearre 

Burton,  Del.  Kahn 

Buckman         Prince 

Van  Winkle    Smith          "***' 

Crumpacker    Dovener 

Scott 

Gaillett,    Cal.  Smith,                   Samuel  W. 

Curtis 

Overstreet 

Wm.  AldenLilley,  Pa. 

Graham 

Olmsted 

Howell             Babcock 

Against  The  Resolution. 

Ruppert 

Little 

Lamar             Gilbert,   Ky.   Aiken 

Sullivan, 

Van  Duzer 

Gaines,  Tenn.Kitchin,           Goulden 

N. 

Y.Hill,  Miss. 

Rainey                         Claude  Brantley 

Patterson, 

Garber 

Randell           Goldfogle         Small 

N. 

C.Bowie 

Tex.McDermott     Swanson 

Broussard 

Reid 

Gill                   Sulzer              Granger 

Patterson, 

Gudger 

Taylor,  Ala.   Talbott            Johnson 

S. 

C.Stanley 

Finley              Southall           Lindsay 

Bell,  Ga. 

Maynard 

Glass                Byrd                 Legare 

Zenor 

Wood 

Pujo                Cockran 

Hardwick 

Mr.  Underwood,  having  voted  nay,  changed  his  vote  to  yea  in  order 
to  move  to  reconsider  the  vote.     (Cong.  Record,  pp.  1588  and  1592.) 

On  the  following  day,  January  27th,  the  amendment  abrogating 
the  eight-hour  law  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  was  passed  by  the 
following  vote: 


Yeas— 120. 

Acheson 

Dawes 

Hoar 

Parker 

Adams,   Pa. 

De  Armond 

Howell,    Utah 

Payne 

Alexander 

Deemer 

Hubbard 

Perkins 

Allen,   Me. 

Dovener 

Jenkins 

Reeder 

Ames 

Draper 

Jones,  Wash. 

Reynolds 

Barchfeld 

Dwight 

Keifer 

Rives 

Bates 

Ellis 

Kinkaid 

Roberts 

Bennet,  N.  Y.    ' 

Esch 

Klepper 

Scroggy 

Birdsall 

Flack 

Knapp 

Shartel 

Bishop 

Fletcher 

Knowland 

Sibley 

Bonynge 

Foss 

Lacey 

Smith,   Cal. 

Boutell 

Foster,  Ind. 

Landis,  Chas.  B. 

Smith,   III. 

Brown 

Foster,  Vt 

Landis,    Frederick  Smith,    Iowa 

Brownlow 

Fowler 

Lawrence 

Smyser 

Buckman 

French 

Loud 

Southard 

Burke,  Pa. 

Fulkerson 

Loudenslager 

Southwick 

Burleigh 

Fuller 

Lovering 

Sperry 

Burton,  Ohio 

Gaines,    W.    Va. 

McKinley,    111. 

Sterling 

Calderhead 

Gardner,    Mass. 

McKinney 

Stevens,    Minn. 

Campbell,   Ohio 

Gillett,  Mass,. 

McMorran 

SuUoway 

Chaney 

Graff 

Mahon 

Tawney 

Chapman 

Gronna 

Mann 

Tirrell 

Cole 

Grosvenor 

Marsliall 

Volstead 

Conner 

Hale 

Miller 

Waldo 

Cousins 

Hamilton 

Mondell 

Wanger 

Currier 

Haskins 

Mouse  r 

Watson 

Dalzell 

Haugen 

Mudd 

Weeks 

Darragh 

Hepburn 

Need  ham 

Welborn 

Davidson 

Hermann 

Norris 

Wilson 

Davis,   Minn. 

Higglns 

Palmer 

The    Speaker 

284 


APPENDICES. 


Nays— 110. 


Adamson 
Aiken 

Allen,  N.  J. 

Bartlett 

Beall,  Tex. 

Bennett,  Ky. 

Bowers 

Broocks,   Tex. 

Brooks,    Col. 

Brundlge 

Burnett 

Butler,  Tenn. 

Campbell,    Kans. 

Candler 

Capron 

Clark,    Fla. 

Clark,  Mo. 

Clayton 

Cooper,  Wis, 

Dale 

Davis,    W.    Va. 

Dickson,   111. 

Dixon,   Ind. 

Edwards 

Ellerbe 

Field 

Finley 

Fitzgerald 


Floyd 

Garner 

Garrett 

Gilbert,    Ky. 

Gill 

Gillespie 

Goebel 

Greene 

Gregg 

Gudger 

Hay 

Heflin 

Henry,    Tex. 

Hogg 

Hopkins 

Houston 

Humphreys,  Miss. 

Hunt 

James 

Johneion 

Keliher 

Kitchin,    Claude 

Kitchin,    Wm.   W. 

Kline 

Lamar 

Lee 

Legare 

Lester 


Lever 

Lewis 

Lloyd 

McCall 

McGavin 

McLachlan 

McLain 

McNary 

Macon 

Maynard 

Meyer 

Michalek 

Moon,   Tenn. 

Moore 

Padgett 

Page 

Pou 

Pujo 

Rainey 

Randell,  Tex, 

Rhinock 

Richardson,  Ala. 

Richardson,    Ky. 

Rixey 

Robertson,    La. 

Robinson,    Ark. 

Rodenberg 

Rucker 


Russell 

Ryan 

Shackleford 

Sheppard 

Sherley 

Sims 

Slayden 

Smith,  Ky. 

Smith,  Pa. 

Smith,  Tex. 

Spight 

Stafford 

Stanley 

Stephens,  Tex. 

Sullivan,    Mass. 

Swanson 

Talbott 

Taylor,   Ala. 

Thomas,  N.  C. 

Towne 

Townsend 

Underwood 

Wallace 

Watkins 

Webb 

Williams  - 


Answered  Present — 11. 

Bradley  Crumpacker  Patterson,  N.  C.  Sherman 

Brick  Flood  Patterson,   S.   C.  Wei^se 

Burton,  Del.  Griggs  Reid 


Not  Voting — 145. 


Adams,   Wis. 

Andrus 

Babcock 

Bankhead 

Bannon 

Bartholdt 

Bede 

Beidler 

Bell,  Ga. 

Bingham 

Blackburn 

Bowersock 

Bowie 

Brantley 

Broussard 

Burgess 

Burke,   S.  Dak. 

Burleson 

Butler,  Pa. 

Byrd 

Calder 


Castor 
Oockran 
Cocks 

Cooper,  Pa. 
Cromer 
Curtis 
Cushman 
Davey,  La. 


Dawson 

Denby 

Dixon,   Mont. 

Dresner 

Driscoil 

Dunwell 

Fassett 

Fordney 

Gaines,    Tenn. 

Garber 

Gardner,   Mich. 

Gardner,   N.   J. 

Gilbert,   Ind. 

Gillett,    Cal. 

Glass 

Goldfogle 

Goulden 

Graham 

Granger 

Hardwick 

Hayes 

Hearst 

Hedge 

Henry,  Conn. 

Hill,  Conn. 

Hill,  Miss. 

Hinshaw 

Hltt 

Holliday 

Howard 


Howell,  N.  J. 

Huff 

Hughes 

Hull 

Humphrey,  Wash 

Jones,  Va. 

Kahn 

Kennedy,    Neb. 

Kennedy,   Ohio 

Ketcham 

Knopf 

Lafean 

Lamb 

Law 

Le  Fevre 

Lilley,  Conn. 

Lilley,  Pa. 

Lindsay 

Littauer 

Little 

Littlefleld 

Livingston 

Longworth 

Lorimer 

McCarthy 

McCleary,   Minn. 

McCreary,    Pa. 

McDermott 

McKinlay,   Cal. 

Madden 


Martin 
Minor 
Moon,  Pa. 
Morrell 
.Murdock 
Murphy 
Nevin 
Olcott 
Olmsted 
Otjen 
Overstreet 
Parsons 
Pattereion,   Pa. 
Patterson,    Tenn. 
Pearre 
Pollard 
Powers 
Prince 

Ransdell,   I>a. 
Rhodes 
Ruppert 
Samuel 
Schneebell 
Scott 
Slemp 
Small 

Smith,    Md. 
Smith,  Samuel  W. 
Smith,  Wm.  Alden 
Snapp 


■ 

APPENDICES. 

285 

w 

Southall 

Trimble 

Webber 

Wood,   N.   J. 

Sparkman 

Tyndall 

Weems 

Woodyard 

S teener son 

Van  Duzer 

Wharton 

Young 

Sullivan,    N.    Y. 

Van    Winkle 

Wiley,   Ala. 

Zenor 

Sulzer 

Vreeland 

Wiley,  N.   J. 

Taylor,   Ohio 

Wachter 

Williamson 

Thomas,  Ohio 

Wadsworth 

Wood,    Mo. 

The  following  were  paired  in  favor  of  the  amendment. 

Andrns 

Howell,  N.   J. 

Vreeland 

Burton,   Del. 

Babcock 

Kahn 

Wachter 

Cromer 

Bannon 

Law 

Wiley,   N.   J. 

Butler,  Penn. 

Bingham 

Lilley,   Penn. 

Wood,  N.  J. 

Graham 

Bowersock 

Littauer 

Lilley,  Conn. 

Hitt 

Brick 

McCreary,    Penn 

.  Longworth 

Bradley 

Calder 

Olmsted 

Ketcham 

Knopf 

Dunwell 

Overstreet 

Wadsworth 

Morrell 

Fassett 

Pearre 

Scott 

Patterson,    Penn. 

Dawson 

Smith,  Samuel  W.Curtis 

Sherman 

Gillett,  Cal. 

Smith,  Wm.  AldenCrumpacker 

The  following  were  paired  against  it. 

Sulzer 

McDermott 

Wiley,   Ala. 

Bell,   Ga. 

Bankhead 

Brantley 

Trimble 

Patterson,  S.  C. 

Small 

Lindsay 

Livingston 

Brousard 

Cockran 

Hearst 

Davey,   La. 

Van  Duzer 

Glass 

Griggs 

Reid 

Hill,  Miss. 

Burleson 

Southall 

Grander 

Goulden 

Jones,  Va. 

Flood 

Garber 

Weisse 

Burgess 

Sparkman 

Bowie 

Sullivan,  N.  Y. 

Gaines,   Tenn. 

Howard 

Hardwick 

Patterson,  N.  C. 

Lamb 

Byrd 

Little 

Ruppert 

Goldfogle 

Smith,    Md. 

Zenor 

ON   THE   JOINT   RESOLUTION    (S.   R*.  60)    "PROVIDING    FOR 

THE   PURCHASE  OF  MATERIAL  AND   EQUIPMENT 

FOR    USE   IN   THE  CONSTRUCTION   OF  THE 

PANAMA  CANAL." 

On  June  16,  1906,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  the 
Aldrich  resolution,  which  had  previously  passed  the  Senate  by 
a  party  vote.    The  resolution  was  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  etc.,  That  purchases  of  material  and  equipment  for  use 
in  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  be  restricted  to  ar- 
ticles of  domestic  production  and  manufacture,  from  the  lowest  re- 
sponsible bidder,  unless  the  President  shall,  in  any  case,  deem  the 
bids  or  tenders  therefor  to  be  extortionate  or  unreasonable."  (Cong. 
Record,  p.  8918.) 

The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas— 129. 


Adams 

Allen,  Me. 

Allen,  N.  J. 

Andrns 

Bannon 

Barchfeld 

Bartholdt 

Bates 

Bede 

Bennett,  N.  Y. 

Bennett,  Ky. 


Bishop 

Bonynge 

Boutell 

Brownlow 

Burke, 

S.  Dak. 
Butler,  Pa. 
Calderhead 
Capron 
Chaney 
Chapman 


Cocks 

Cole 

Cooper,  Pa. 

Cooper,  Wis. 

Cousins 

Cromer 

Currier 

Curtis 

Cushman 

Dale 

Dalzell 


Davidson 

Dawes 

Denby 

Dixon,    Mont. 

Draper 

Driscoll 

Dunwell 

Dwlght 

Ellis 

Fletcher 

Foss 


Foster,    Tnd. 
Foster,   Vt. 
French 
Gaines, 

W.  Va. 
Gardner, 


Gardner, 


Mich. 


Gardner, 


N.    J. 


286 


APPENDICES. 


Goebel 

Jones,    Wash.  McKinley, 

Overstreet 

Sulloway 

Graff 

Kahn 

Cal.  Payne 

Taylor,  0. 

Grosvenor 

Keifer 

McKinley, 

lU.Reeder 

Thomas,  0. 

Hale 

Kennedy, 

McKinney 

Ilhodes 

Tirrell 

Hamilton 

Neb.  McLachlan 

Rives 

Townsend 

Hayes 

Kinkaid 

McMorran 

Rodenberg 

Waldo 

Henry,  Conn.Klepper 

Madden 

Scroggy 

Wanger 

Hepburn 

Knowland 

Mahon 

Sibley 

Watson 

Hermann 

Lacey 

Marshall 

Smith,  Cal. 

Weems 

Higgins 

Landis, 

Martin 

Smith,  Iowa 

Wharton 

Hill,  Conn. 

FrederickMichalek 

Smith, 

Willey,   N.  J. 

Hoar 

Lawrence 

Miller 

Samuel  \\ 

'.Wilson 

Hogg 

Loud 

Mondell 

Smyser 

Wood,  N.   J. 

Howell,  N.  J.  Loudenslager  Mouser 

Snapp 

Woodward 

Huff 

McCleary, 

Needham 

Southard 

Humphrey 

Minn.Nevin 

Southwick 

Wash.McCreary, 

Olmstead 

Sperry 

Jenkins 

Pa.Otjen 

Sterling 

Nays- 

-82. 

Adamson 

Davis,    Minn.Kitchin, 

Rainey 

Wallace 

Aiken 

Davis,  W.  Va.           Wm. 

W.Ransdell,    La.Watkins  ' 

Bankhead 

De  Armond 

Lee 

Richardson, 

Webb 

Bartlett 

Dixon,  Ind. 

Lloyd 

Ky.  Williams 

Beall,   Tex. 

Ellerbe 

McCarthy 

Russell 

Zenor 

Bell,  Ga. 

Finley 

McLain 

Sheppard 

Birdsall 

Floyd 

McNary 

Sherley 

Bowie 

Fulkerson 

Macon 

Sims 

Brantley 

Garner 

Mann 

Slayden 

Broocks,  Tex.  Granger 

Meyer 

Smith,   Ky. 

Brundlge 

Hardwick 

Moon,  Tenn.    Smith,    Tex. 

,, 

Burgess 

Heflin 

Moore 

Spight 

Burleson 

Henry,   Tex. 

Murdock 

Stafford 

Burton,   0. 

Houston 

Murphy 

Steenerson 

Butler,  Tenn.  Howard 

Norris 

Stevens, 

Candler 

Hubbard 

Padgett 

Minn 

Clark,   Fla. 

Humphreys, 

Patterson, 

Sullivan, 

Clark,  Mo. 

Miss.                 S. 

C.                Mass 

!. 

Clayton 

Hunt 

Perkins 

Thomas, 

Crumpacker 

Johnson 

Pou 

N.    C 

Darragh 

Jones,  Va. 

Pujo 

Volstead 

Answered  Present — 9. 

Burton,  Del. 

Holliday 

Patterson, 

Pollard 

Weeks 

Gregg 

Lever 

N. 

C.  Sparkman 

Hinshaw 

Not  Voting — 160. 

Acheson 

Campbell,    0.  Garett 

Hopkins 

Lewis 

Alexander 

Cassel 

Gilbert 

Howell,  UtahLilley,  Conn. 

Ames 

Cockran 

Gill 

Hughes 

Lilley,    Pa. 

Babcock 

Conner 

Gillespie 

Hull 

Lindsay 

Beidler 

Davey,  La. 

Gillette,    Cal.  James 

Littauer 

Bingham 

Dawson 

Gillette, 

Keliher 

Little 

Blackburn 

Deember 

Mass.  Kennedy,  0. 

Littlefield 

Bowers 

Dickson,  ni. 

Glass 

Ketcham 

Livingston 

Bowersock 

Dovener 

Goldfogle 

Kitchin, 

Longworth 

Bradley 

Dresser 

Goulden 

Claude  Lorimer 

Brick 

Edwards 

Graham 

Kline 

Lovering 

Brooks,   Col. 

Esch 

Greene 

Knapp 

McCall 

Broussard 

Fassett 

Griggs 

Knopf 

McDermott 

Brown 

Field 

Gronna 

Lafean 

McGavin 

Buckman 

Fitzgerald 

Gudger 

Lamar 

Maynard 

Burke,  Pa. 

Fleck 

Haskins 

Lamb 

Minor 

Burleigh 

Flood 

Haugen 

Landis, 

Moon,  Pa. 

Burnett 

Fordney 

Hay 

Chas.  B.Morrell 

Byrd 

Fowler 

Hearst 

Tiaw 

Mudd 

Calder 

E^uller 

Hedge 

Lefevre 

Olcott 

Campbell, 

Gaines,  Tenn.  Hill,    Miss. 

Legare 

Page 

Kan.  Garer 

Hitt 

Lester 

Palmer 

APPENDICES. 


287 


raiker             Rixey                Shaitel 

Sullivan,  N.\ 

'.Wadsworth 

Parsons           Roberts            Sherman 

Sulzer 

Webber 

Patterson.       Robertson,      Slemp 

Talbott 

Weisse 

Tenn.                    La.  Small 

Tawney 

Welborn 

Pearre             Robinson,        Smith,   111. 

Taylor,  Ala. 

Wiley,  Ala. 

Powers                             Ark.  Smith,  Md. 

Towne 

Wood,   Mo. 

Prince              Rucker             Smith, 

Tyndall 

Young 

Randell,  Tex.Ruppert          ,     Wm.  Alden  Underwood 

Reid                 Ryan                Smith,  Pa. 

Van  Duzer 

Reynolds          Samuel             Southall 

Van  Winkle 

Pthinock           Schneebelle     Stanley 

Trimble 

Richardson,     Scott                Stephens, 

Vreeland 

Ala.  Shackelford                    Tex.Wachter 

Of  those  not  voting  152  members  were  paired — ^the  Republicans  for 
the  resolution  and  the  Democrats  against  it,  as  follows : 


Paiked   For   It. 


Currier 

Holliday 

McCreary, 

Burleigh 

Dalzell 

Sherman 

Morrell 

Pa.  Brown 

Lawrence 

Mouser 

Lilley,  Pa. 

McCall,  Mich.Brick 

Reynolds 

Bradley 

Hitt 

Loud 

Blackburn 

Smith,  111. 

Longworth 

Dovener 

Littauer 

Bingham 

Gardner, 

Graham 

Burke 

Lilley,  Conn. 

Beidler 

Bartholdt 

Vreeland 

Minor 

Landis, 

Gillett,  Mass.  Brooks,   Col. 

Knapp 

Shartel 

Charles  B.Fassett 

Babcock 

Slemp 

Roberts 

Ketcham 

Schneebeli 

Burton,  Ohio 

Powers 

Wadsworth 

Hull 

Gronna 

Van  Winkle 

Daemer 

Smith, 

Hughes 

Bowersock 

Alexander 

Haskins 

Wm.  Alden  Hiaugen 

Acheson 

Tawney 

Greene 

Pearre 

Gardner 

Mudd 

Campbell, 

Welborn 

Palmer 

Fuller 

Wachter 

Kan. 

Weeks 

Olcott 

Cassel 

Burton,  Del. 

Esch 

Edwards 

Moon,  Pa. 

Calderhead 

Dickson,  111. 

Ames 

Lefevre 

Mondell 

Calder 

Law 

Paiked   Against   It. 

Finley 

Kitchin, 

Randell, 

Field 

Wood,  Mo. 

Kuppert 

Claude                  Tex.  Byrd 

Williams 

Garrett 

Wiley,  Ala. 

Patterson, 

Brussard 

Griggs 

Goulden 

Sullivan, 

Tenn.  Bowers 

Hunt 

Stephens, 

N.  Y.Robertson, 

Small 

Lamar 

Tex.  Gilbert,   Ky. 

La.  Lindsay 

Russell 

Page 

Legare 

McLain 

Bell,  Ga. 

Griggs 

Gregg 

Sparkman 

Towne 

Keliher 

McLain 

Little 

Gillespie 

McDermott 

Smith,  Md. 

Pujo 

Glass 

Sulzer 

Livingston 

Patterson 

Humphreys 

Gaines,  Tenn.  Van  Duzer 

Lewis 

Garber 

Richardson, 

Kline 

Weisse 

Hearst 

Goldfogle 

Ala. 

Lever 

Lamb 

Lester 

Robinson, 

Garrett 

Patterson, 

Underwood 

Lamar 

Ark.  Ryan 

N. 

C.  Southall 

Hay 

James 

Davey,  La. 

Gudger 

Shackleford 

Flood 

Rhinock 

Trimble 

Stanley 

Rixey 

Fitzgerald 

Gill 

Kucker 

Hill,  Miss. 

Reid 

Cockran 

Burnett 

(Cong.  Record,  pp.  8910,  8914,  8918.) 


288 


APPENDICES. 


PRESIDENT'S  TRAVELING   EXPENSES. 

ON     THE     BILL    (H.    R.    20,321),    "TO     PROVIDE     FOR     THE 

TRAVELING   EXPENSES  OF  THE  PRESIDENT 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES." 

On  June  20,  1906,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  the 
following  bill: 

"Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  hereafter  there  may  be  expended  for  or 
on  account  of  the  traveling  expenses  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  such  sum  as  Congress  may  from  time  to  time  appropriate, 
not  exceeding  $25,000  per  annum,  such  sum  when  appropriated  to 
be  expended  in  the  discretion  of  the  President  and  accounted  for  on 
his  certificate  solely. 

"There  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  for  the  purposes  authorized  by  this  act 
for  the  fiscal  year  1907,  the  sum  of  $25,000."      (Cong.  Record,  9055.) 

The  vote  in  detail  was  as  follows: 


Yeas— 176. 

Adams 

Currier 

Hale 

Littauer 

Ryan 

Alexander 

Curtis 

Hamilton 

McCarthy 

Samuel 

Allen,  Me. 

Cushman 

Hayes 

McGavin 

Schneebelie 

Allen,  N.  J. 

Dalzell 

Hedge 

McKinley, 

Scott 

Andrus 

Davey,  La. 

Henry,  Conn.                   Cai 

I.  Scroggy 

Barchfeld 

Davis,  Minn 

.  Hepburn 

McKinney 

Shartel 

Bartholdt 

Dawes 

Hermann 

McLachlan 

Sherley 

Bede 

Dawson 

Higgins 

McMorran 

Smith,  HI. 

Bennett,  Ky 

.  Denby 

Hinshaw 

McNary 

Smith,  Iowa 

Birdsall  ^ 

Dickson,  111. 

Hoar 

Madden 

Smith, 

Bonynge 

Dixon,  Mont, 

.  Hogg 

Marshall 

Samuel  W. 

Boutell 

Draper 

Holiday 

Martin 

Smith,  Pa. 

Brick 

Dunwell 

Howell,  Utah  Meyer 

Sperry 

Brooks,  Col. 

Ellis 

Hubbard 

Miehalek 

Stafford 

Broussard 

Esch 

Huff 

Miller 

Steenerson 

Brownlow 

Fassett 

Hull 

Mondell 

Sterling 

Buckman 

Fitzgerald 

Humphrey, 

Moon,  Pa. 

Sullivan, 

Burton,  Del. 

Fordney 

Wash.  Mouser 

Mass. 

Burton,   OhioFoss 

Hunt 

Mudd 

Sulloway 

Butler,  Pa. 

Foster,    Ind. 

Jenkins 

Murdock 

Tawney 

Calder 

French 

Jones 

Murphy 

Taylor,  Ohio 

Campbell, 

Fulkerson 

Kahn 

Needham 

Thomas,  Ohio 

Kan.  Fuller 

Keifer 

Nevin 

Tirrell 

Campbell,    O.Gaines, 

Keliher 

Norris 

Tyndall 

Capron 

W.  Va.  Kennedy, 

Olmstead 

Volstead 

Cassel 

Gardner, 

Neb.  Otjen 

Wachter 

Chaney 

Mass.Kinkaid 

Overstreet 

Waldo 

Chapman 

Gardner, 

Klepper 

Payne 

Wanger 

Clark,  Fla. 

Mict 

I.  Kline 

Pollard 

Watson 

Cockran 

Gardner, 

Knapp 

Prince 

Webber 

Cocks 

N.  J.Knowland 

Pujo 

Weems 

Cole 

Gillett,  Mass.Lacey 

Ransdell,  La.  Wiley,  N.  J. 

Conner 

Glass 

T/Rfean 

Reeder 

Wood,  N.  J. 

Cooper,  Pa. 

Goebel 

Landis, 

Reynolds 

Woodyard 

Cooper,  Wis, 

.  Goulden 

Frederick  Rives 

Young 

Cousins 

Graff 

Law 

Roberts 

Cromer 

Granger 

Lilley,  Conn, 

.  Rodenberg 

Crumpacker 

Grosvenor 

Lindsay 

Ruppert 

APPENDICES. 


289 


Nays — 66. 

Adamson 

Flood 

James 

Patterson, 

Southall 

Aiken 

Floyd 

Johnson 

S.  < 

C.Spight 

Bankhead 

Garner 

Jones,  Va. 

Rainey 

Thomas, 

Beall,  Tex. 

Garrett 

Kitchin, 

Rhinock 

N.  C. 

Brundlge 

Gill 

Wm.  W.lUchardson, 

Towne 

Burgess 

Gillespie 

Lemar 

Ala.Townsend 

Burleson 

Hay 

Lee 

Ricliardson, 

Trimble 

Burnett 

Heflin 

Livingston 

Ky.  Underwood 

Butler,  Tenn.  Henry,  Tex. 

Lloyd 

Rixey 

Wallace 

Candler 

Hill,    Miss. 

McLain 

Rucker 

Watkins 

Clark,   Mo. 

Hopkins 

Macon 

Russell 

Williams 

De  Armond 

Houston 

Maynard 

Slieppard 

Zenor 

Dixon,  Ind. 

Howard 

Moon,  Tenn. 

Sims 

Ellerbe 

Humplireys, 

Moore 

Slayden 

Finley 

Miss.  Padgett 

Smith,  Tex. 

Not  Voting — 125. 
Gaines,  Tenn.  Gregg  Lever  Mann  Pou 

Gilbert,    Ky.  Kitchin,  McCleary,        Patterson,       Southward 

Graham  Claude  Minn.  N.  C.  Weeks 

Answered  Present — 12. 


Acheson 

Davidson 

Hughes 

Page 

Southwick 

Ames 

Davis,  W.  Va.  Kennedy,  0. 

Palmer 

Sparkman 

Babcock 

Deemer 

Ketcham 

Parker 

Stanley 

Bannon 

Dovener 

Knopf 

Parsons 

Stephens, 

Bartlett 

Dreeser 

Lamb 

Patterson, 

Tex. 

Bates 

Driscoll 

Landis, 

Tenn.  Stevens, 

Beidler 

Dwight 

Chas.  B.Pearre 

Minn. 

Bell,  Ga. 

Edwards 

Lawrence 

Perkins 

Sullivan, 

Bennet,  N. 

Y.  Field 

Lefevre 

Powers 

N.  Y. 

Bingham 

Flack 

Legare 

Randell,  Tex.Sulzer 

Bishop 

Fletcher 

Lewis 

Reid 

Talbott 

Blackburn 

Foster,  Vt. 

Lilley,  Pa. 

Rhodes 

Taylor,  Ala. 

Bowers 

Fowler 

Little 

Robertson, 

Van  Duzer 

Bowersock 

Garner 

Littlefield 

La.  Van  Winkle 

Bowie 

Gilbert,  Ind, 

,   Longworth 

Robinson, 

Vreeland 

Bradley 

Gillett,  Cal. 

Lorimer 

Ark.Wadsworth 

Brantley 

Goldfogle 

Loud 

Shackelford 

Webb 

Broocks,  Tex.  Greene 

Loudenslager  Sherman 

Weisse 

Brown 

Griggs 

Lovering 

Sibley 

Welborn 

Burke,  Pa. 

Gronna 

McCall 

Slemp 

Wharton 

Burke, 

Gudger 

McCreary, 

Small 

Wiley,  Ala. 

S.  Dak.Hardwick 

Pa.  Smith,  Cal. 

Wilson 

Burleigh 

Haskins 

McDermott 

Smith,  Ky. 

Wood,  Mo. 

Byrd 

Haugen 

McKinley,  HI.  Smith,  Md. 

Calderhead 

Hearst 

Mahon 

Smith, 

Clayton 

Hill,  Conn. 

Minor 

Wm.  Alden 

Dale 

Hitt 

Morrell 

Smyser 

Darragh 

Howell,  N.  . 

J.Olcott 

Snapp 

(Cong.  Record,  p.  9059.) 

Of  those  not  voting  96  were  paired — 28  Republicans  for  the  bill 
and  48  Democrats  against  it,  as  follows : 


Southward  Lefevre 

Dale  Hitt 

Morrell  Dovener 

Mahon  Foster 
McKinley,  111. Lawrence 

Powers  Edwards 

Haskins  Minor 

Welbirn  Babcock 

Weeks  Kennedy.  O. 


Paired  For  The  Bill. 
McCleary,       Burleigh  Smith, 

Minn.  Howell,  N.  J.     Wm.  Alden 


McCall 

Olcott 

Acheson 

Bingham 

Burke,  Pa. 

Brown 

Ketcham 


Hughes  Lovering 

Landis,  Sherman 

Charles  B.  Deemer 

Loudenslager  Bradley 

McCreary,       Bannon 

Pa.  Rhodes 

Wilson  Mann 


1 


290 


APPENDICES. 


Paiked  Agai 

NST  The  Bill. 

Hardwick        Kitchin, 

Gregg 

Barger 

Smith,  Ky. 

Bowie                            Claude  Stephens, 

Bell,  Ga. 

Shackleford 

Sullivan.          Legare 

Tex.Byrd 

W^ood,  Mo. 

N,  Y.Sparkman        Webb 

Goldfogle 

Robinson, 

Weisse              Pou 

Broocks, 

Tex.  Field 

Ark. 

Ueid                 Griggs 

Sulzer 

Hearst 

Small 

Gaines,           Clayton 

Bowers 

McDermott 

Talbott 

Tenn.  Patterson,       Lamb 

Patterson, 

Little      . 

Lever 

N.  C.Brantley 

Tenn,  Lewis 

Gudger             Gilbert, 

Ky.   Robertson,       Randell,  Tex.  Wiley,  Ala. 

Stanley            Page 

La.  Taylor,  Ala. 

Smith,  Md. 
Bartlett 

(gong.  Record,  p.  9059.) 

RATIFICATION     OF     EXECUTIVE     USURPATIONS— PHILIP- 
PINE  BLACKMAIL  COLLECTIONS. 

On  June  27,  1906,  the  House  of  Representatives  passed  the 
following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  during  the  consideration  of  the  general  deficiency 
appropriation  bill,  now  pending  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  state  of  the  Union,  it  hall  be  in  order  to  consider  points  of 
order  notwithstanding  the  paragraph  relating  to  the  ratification  of 
the  Philippines'  tariff,  page  4,  lines  17  to  26,  and  page  5,  lines  1  and  2, 
as  follows,  viz. : 

"  'That  the  tariff  duties,  both  import  and  export,  imposed  by  the 
authorities  of  the  United  States  or  of  the  provisional  military  gov- 
ernment thereof  in  the  Philippine  Islands  prior  to  March  8,  1902,  at 
all  ports  and  places  in  said  islands  upon  all  goods,  wares  and  mer- 
chandise imported  into  said  islands  from  the  United  States,  or  from 
foreign  countries,  or  exported  from  said  islands,  are  hereby  legalized 
and  ratified,  and  the  collection  of  all  such  duties  prior  to  March  8, 
1902,  is  hereby  legalized  and  ratified  and  confirmed  as  fully  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  as  if  the  same  had  by  prior  act  of  Congress  been 
specifically  authorized  and  directed.'  "  ( See  Cong.  Record,  p.  9652. ) 

The  vote  in  detail  on  this  resolution  was  as  follows: 


Yeas — 154. 

Acheson 

Cocks 

Fussett            Higgins            Le  Fevre 

Adams 

Cole 

Fletcher           Hinshaw          Lilley,  Conn. 

Alexander 

Conner 

Foster,  Ind.    Hoar                 Littauer 

Allen,  N.  J. 

Cooper,  Wis. 

Foster,  Vt.      Holliday          Loud 

Bannon 

Coudrey 

Fowler             Howell,  N.  J.  Loudenslager 

Barchfeld 

Cousins 

French             Howell,  Utah  McCarthy 

Bates 

Cromer 

Fulkerson        Hubbard          McCreary, 

Bennet,  N.  Y 

:.Crumpacker 

Fuller               Huff                                    Pa. 

Bennett,  Ky. 

Currier 

Gaines,             Humphrey,      McGavin 

Bishop 

Curtis 

W.  Va.               Wash.McKinley, 

Bonynge 

Dalzell 

Gardner,          Jenkins                              Cal. 

Boutell 

Darragh 

Mass.  Jones,   Wash.McKinley,  111. 

Brick 

Davidson 

Gardner,          Kahn                McKinney 

Brooks,  Col. 

Davis,  Minn 

Mich.  Keif  er              McLachlan 

Burke,  Pa. 

Dawson 

Gilbert,    Ind.  Kennedy,         McMorran 

Burton,  Del. 

Denby 

Goebel                               Neb.  Madden 

Burton,    OhioOiekson,  111. 

Graff                Kennedy,  0.   Mahon 

Calderhead 

Dixon,    Mont.  Grosvenor        Kinkaid            Mann 

Campbell, 

Dresser 

Hale                 Klepper            Marshall 

Kan.Driscol 

Hamilton         Lacey                Michalek 

Campbell,  0. 

Dunwell 

Haskins           Lafean             Miller 

Capron 

Dwight 

Hayes               Landls,             Moon,  Pa. 

Cassel 

Ellis 

Henry,  Conn.           Chas.  B.Morrel 

Chapman 

Esch 

Hermann         Lawrence        Mouser 

APPENDICES. 


291 


Needham 

Rives 

Smith,  Iowa 

Sterling 

Watson 

Nevin 

Roberts 

Smith, 

Sulloway 

Webber 

Olcott 

Rodenberg 

Wm.  AldenTawney 

Weeks 

Olmsted 

Samuel 

Smyser 

Thomas,    0. 

Weems 

Otjen 

Sclineebeli 

Snapp 

Tirreli 

Wiley,  N.  J. 

Parker 

Scott 

Southwick 

Townsend 

Wilson 

Payne 

Slierman, 

Sperry 

Volstead 

Wood 

Perkins 

Smith,    Cal. 

Stafford 

Waldo 

Young 

Reynolds 

Smith,  111. 

Steenerson 

Nays — 

Wanger 

•82. 

Adamson 

Ellerbe 

Humphreys, 

McNary 

Sheppard 

Bankhead 

Finley 

Miss.  Macon 

Sherley 

Bartlett 

Fitzgerald 

Hunt 

Maynard 

Sims 

Beall,  Tex. 

Flood 

Johnson 

Moon,  Tenn. 

Smith,  Md. 

Bell,  Ga. 

Floyd 

Jones,  Va. 

Moore 

Sullivan, 

Broussard 

Garber 

Keliher 

Murphy 

Mass. 

Brundige 

Garrett 

Kitchin 

Padgett 

Sulzer 

Burgess 

Gill 

ClaudePatterson, 

Talbott 

Burleson 

Gillespie 

Kitchin, 

S.   C.Trimble 

Burnett 

Granger 

Wm.  W.Pou 

Underwood 

Candler 

Gregg 

Lemar 

Pujo 

Wallace 

Clark,  Fla. 

Griggs 

Lamb 

Ransdell,   La.Watkins 

Clark,  Mo. 

Hay 

Lee 

Rhinock 

Webb 

Cockran 

Heflin 

Lever 

Rixey 

Williams 

Davey,  La. 

Henry,   Tex. 

Lindsay 

Rucker 

Davis,  W.  Va.Hill,  Miss. 

Livingston 

Ruppert 

De  Armond 

Hopkins 

Lloyd 

Russell 

Dixon,  Ind. 

Houston 

McCall 

Ryan 

Answered  Present — 15. 
Bradley  Gaines,  Gre«ne  Meyer  Spight 

Burleigh  Tenn.  Gudger  Parsons 

Butler,  Pa.     Glass  Hardwiek        Richardson, 

Dale  Graham  James  Ky. 

Not  Voting — 128. 


Aiken 

Dawes 

Kline 

Patterson, 

Smith,  Tex. 

Allen,    Me. 

Deemer 

Knapp 

N.  C.Southall 

Ames 

Dovener 

Knopf 

Patterson, 

Southard 

Andrus 

Draper 

Knowland 

Tenn.  Sparkman 

Babcock 

Edwards 

Landis 

Pearre 

Stanley 

Bartholdt 

Field 

Frederick 

Pollard 

Stephen,  Tex. 

Bede 

Flack 

Law 

Powers 

Stevens, 

Beidler 

Fordney 

Legare 

Prince 

Minn. 

Bingham 

Foss 

Lewis 

Rainey 

Sullivan, 

Blrdsall 

Gardner, 

Lilley,  Pa. 

Randell,  Tex.                 N.  Y. 

Blackburn 

N.  . 

J.  Little 

Reeder 

Taylor,  Ala. 

Bowers 

Garner 

Littlefleld 

Reid 

Taylor,  Ohio 

Bowersock 

Gilbert,   Ky, 

.   Longworth 

Rhodes 

Thomas, 

Bowie 

Gillett, 

Lorimer 

Richardson, 

N.  C. 

Brantley 

Mass.  Lovering 

Ala.  Towne 

Broocks 

Goldfogle 

McCleary, 

Robertson, 

Tyndall 

Tex.Goulden 

Minn.                    La.  Van  Duzer 

Brown 

Gronna 

McDermott 

Robinson, 

Van  Winkle 

Brownlow 

Haugen 

McLain 

Ark.  Vreeland 

Buckman 

Hearst 

Martin 

Scroggy 

Wachter 

Burke, 

Hedge 

Minor 

Shackleford 

Wadsworth 

S.  Dak,  Hepburn 

Mondell 

Shartel 

Welsse 

Butler, 

Hill,  Conn. 

Mudd 

Sibley 

Welborn 

Tenn.Hltt 

Murdock 

Slayden 

Wharton 

Calder 

Hogg 

Morris 

Slemp 

Wiley,  Ala. 

Chaney 

Howard 

Overstreet 

Small,  Ky. 

Woodyard 

Clayton 

Hughes 

Page 

Smith, 

Zenor 

Cooper,  Pa. 

Hull 

Palmer 

Samuel  W 

Cushman 

Ketcham 

Smith,   Pa. 

(See  Cong.  Record,  p.  9657.) 


APPENDICES. 


The  following  members  were  paired  for  the  resolution: 

Hull 

Deemer 

Powers 

Law 

Bingham 

Bradley 

Greene 

Slemp 

Knapp 

Beidler 

Foss 

Fuller 

Vreeland 

Knowland 

Buckman 

Dale 

Graham 

Wachter 

Ketcham 

Littlefield 

Babcock 

Hughes 

Woodyard 

Hepburn 

Burleigh 

Andrus 

Hedge 

Smith, 

Fordney 

Bede 

Southard 

Edwards 

Samuel  W.  Draper 

Pearre 

Lilley,  Pa. 

Longworth 

Sibley 

Dawes 

Wadsworth 

Butler,  Pa. 

Dovener 

Rhodes 

Cooper,  Pa. 

Hill,  Conn. 

Hitt 

Palmer 

Gillett, 

Birdsall 

Le  Fevre 

Murdock 

Mass 

. 

Brownlow 

Welborn 

Mudd 

Bowersock 

The  following  were 

paired  against  it: 

Slayden 

Kline 

Kitchin, 

Smith,  Ky. 

Clayton 

Goulden 

Patterson, 

Claude  Taylor,  Ala. 

Bowers 

Meyer 

N. 

C.  Gudger 

Reid 

Goldfogle 

Bowie 

Richardson 

Gaines, 

Rainey 

Aiken 

Littlo 

Ky.                Tenn.  Towne 

Robertson, 

Thomas, 

Page 

Glass 

Randell,  Ten 

La. 

N. 

C.Reid 

Field 

Richardson, 

Sullivan, 

Hardwick 

Spight 

Wiley,  Ala. 

Ala 

N.  Y. 

Gilbert,  Ky. 

Broocks,  Tex.Southall 

Patterson, 

McDermott 

Garner 

Stephens, 

Stanley 

Tenn.  Brantley 

Butler,  Tenn.                  Tex.  Small 

McLain 

Van  Duzer 

Hearst 

Sparkman 

Shackleforc 

I     Lewis 

Zenor 

Smith,  Tex. 

Legare 

Robinson, 

Howard 

Official  statement  showing  monthly  operations  of  McKinley^ 
tariff  from  October,  1890,  when  it  took  effect,  to  the  inauguration 
of  Mr.  Cleveland,  March,  1893.  The  table  (printed  elsewhere) 
prepared  by  Hon.  John  W.  Gaines,  is  based  on  this  statement. 


APPEJ^DICES.  2dS 


APPENDIX  D. 

A   LIST  OF  TRUSTS   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


This  list  of  287  industrial  trusts — probably  the  most  complete  ever 
published,  is  prepared  by  Mr.  John  Moody,  of  New  York,  publisher  of 
Moody's  Manual  of  Corporation  Securities,  the  standard  reference  booh:  lor 
American  investment  securities  of  every  nature. 

This  list  embraces  all  so-called  trusts  of  importance,  and  in- 
cludes besides  industrial  combinations,  the  large  security-holding 
(but  not  operating)  companies  in  the  gas,  electric  light,  electric 
and  steam  railroad  industries.  Hence  a  security-holding  com- 
pany, or  ''trust,"  such  as  the  Bay  State  Gas  Company,  is  included, 
whereas  the  Consolidated  Gas  Company  of  New  York  is  omitted. 
Likewise  the  Northern  Securities  Company  is  included,  but  the 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company  omitted.  The  many  consolidated 
transportation  and  other  franchise  corporations  not  embraced  in 
this  list,  such  as  railroad,  traction,  lighting  and  water  combina- 
tions, would  aggregate  in  capitalization  many  billions  of  dollars. 
This  list,  however,  is  limited  to  what  are  popularly  known  as 
"industrial  trusts."  The  industrial  companies  here  embraced  are 
all  consolidations  or  absorptions  of  one  kind  or  another. 

Capital  Stock  Bonded  Debt 

Name  of  Company.                            Outstanding.  Outstanding. 

X  Alabama  Consol.  Coal  Mine  Co $  5,000,000  $     '      495,000 

X  Alabama  &  Georgia  Iron  Co 1,300,000           

X  Allied    Securities   Co 5,000,000           

X  Allis-Chalmers    Co 36,250,000 

Amalgamated    Copper   Co 155,000,000  

X  American  Agricultural    Chemical    Co.  .  .  33,600,000           

X  American  Axe  &  Tool  Co 2,000,000           

X  American  Beet  Sugar  Co 19,000,000  1,000,000 

X  American  Bicycle  Co 26,996,400  9,500,000 

X  American  Book    Co 5,000,000           

X  American  Brake,  Shoe  &  Foundry  Co...  4.500,000  1,000,000 

X  American  Brass  Co 10,000,000           .  •  .  .  ^ 

X  American  Can    Co . 86,466,600           

X  American  Car  &  Foundry   Co ........  .  60,000,000           

X  American  Caramel  Co 2,000,000  475,000 

X  American  Cement  Co .  2,000,000  930,000 

X  American  Cereal    Co 3,400,000  1,187,000 

X  American  Chicle  Co 9,000,000           

X  American  Cigar   Co 10,000,000           

X  American  Coal   Co 1,500,000           

X  American  Cotton  Oil  Co 30,435,700  3,000,000 

X  American  Felt    Co 3,250,000  500,000 

American  Fruit  Products  Co 1,750,000           

X  American  Glue  Co 2,400,000           

*  American  Graphophone  Co ;  .  .  2,000,000  300,000 

♦  American  Grass  Twine  Co 13,083,000           

X  American  Hardware   Corporation 5,000,000           

X  American  Hide  and  Leather  Co 24,500,000  8,525,000 

♦  American  Hominy   Co 3,750,000  1,250,000 

American  Ice    Co 40,000,000  1,705,000 

X  American  Iron  &  Steel  Mfg  Co 20,000,000 

American  Light  &  Traction  Co 12,127,800           

X  American  Linseed    Co 33,500,000           

*  American  Lithographic   Co 4,000,000           

X  American  Locomotive    Co 49,100,000  1,312,500 


294  APPENDICES. 


Capital  Stock         Bonded  Debt 

Name  of  Company.  Outstanding.           Outstanding. 

X  American  Machine  &  Ordnance  Co $10,000,000  

X  American  Malting  Co 28,940,000 

*  American  Packing  Co 20,000,000 

X  American  Perfume  Co 5,000,000 

X  American  Pipe  Mfg.    Co 2,000,000 

X  American  Plow    Co 75,000,000 

American  Pneumatic  Service  Co 7,679,000 

X  American  Radiator  Co 7,893,000 

X  American  Railway  Equipment  Co 22,000,000 

American  Railways   Co 3,750,000 

X  American  School  Furniture  Co 8,856,100 

X  American  Screw  Co 3,250,000 

X  American  Sewer  Pipe  Co 7,795,700 

X  American  Shipbuilding  Co 15,500,000 

X  American  Silver  &  Casket  Co 500,000 

X  American  Smelting  &  Refining  Co 100,000,000 

*  American  Snuff   Co 23,001,700 

X  American  Steel    Foundries'    Co 30,000,000 

X  American  Stove  Co 5,000,000 

*  American  Soda  Fountain  Co 3,750,000 

X  American   Sugar  Refining  Co 89,871,100 

American  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co...  114,748,000 

X  American  Thread  Co 10,890,475 

X  American  Tube  &   Stamping  Co 2,800,000 

X  American  Type  Founders  Co 5,000,000 

X  American  Window  Glass  Co 17,000,000 

X  American  Woolen  Co 49,501,100 

X  American  Wringer  Co 2,500,000 

X  American  Writing  Paper   Co 22,000,000 

X  Ames  Shovel  &  Tool  Co 5,000,000  

X  Anthony  &  Scoville  Co 1,000,000  

Associated   Merchants'   Co 15,000,000  

*  Atlantic  Rubber  Shoe  Co 10,000,000  

X  Automatic  Weighing  Machine  Co 3,600,000  

X  Automobile  &  Cycle  Parts  Co 3,377,500  

*  Baltimore  Brick  Co 2,000,000                   1,500,000 

Bay  State  Gas  Co 100,000,000                 12,000,000 

X  Biglow  Carpet  Co 4,030,000                     425,000 

Booth  &  Co.    (A) 5,500,000       *    

X  Borden's  Condensed  Milk  Co 25,000,000  

Boston  Suburban  Electric  Co.'s 4,500,000  

*  California  Fruit  Canners'  Assn 2,891,600  

X  California  Wine  Association 4,337,200  

X  Cambria  Steel  Co 45,000,000  

X  Casein  Co.  of  America 6,492,000  

Celluloid  Company 5,925,000  

*  Central  Coal  &  Coke  Co 3,750,000  

*  Central  Fireworks  Co 2,673,350  

X  Central   Foundry   Co 14,000,000                   4,000,000 

Central  Hudson   Steamboat  Co 1,000,000                     500,000 

Chicago  &  N.  W.  Granaries  Co 1,200,000                     600,000 

X  Chicago  Pneumatic  Tool  Co 7,500,000                  2,500,000 

Chicago  Railway  Term'l  Elevator  Co. . .  2,733,770                   1,365,500 

City  of  Chicago  Brew'g  &  Malt'g  Co.,  Ltd.  6,087,500                   3,166,000 

X  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co 25,000,000                18,300,000 

Commercial  Cable   Co 13,333,300                20,000,000 

Compressed  Air  Co 7,156,300                     500,000 

X  Consolidated  Car  Heating  Co 1,250,000  

X  Consolidated  Lake  Superior  Co 86,000,000  

X  Consolidated  Lime  Co 2,500,000  

Consol.  Railway  Lighting  &  Refrig.  Co.         17,000,000  '. 

X  Consolidated  Rosendale   Cement   Co 1,500,000                   1,100,000 

X  Consolidated  Tobacco  Co 94,844,600               167,844,600 

X  Consolidated  Wagon  &  Machine  Co 1,200,000  

X  Continental  Cotton  Oil  Co .  . 3,325,686  

X  Continental  Gin  Co 2,000,000                     356,000 


APPENDICES.  295 


Capital  Stock  Bonded  Debt 

Name  of  Company.                           Outstanding.  Outstanding. 

X  Corn  Products  Co $80,000,000           

X  Coxe  Bros.   &  Co 3,320,100           

X  Crucible  Steel  Co.  of  America 50,000,000           

Denver  United  Breweries,  Ltd 2,000,000  $1,000,000 

X  Diamond  Match  Co 15,000,000           

X  Diamond  State  Steel  Co 4,250,000  1,000,000 

♦  Distilling  Co.  of  America 74,011,291  5,453,000 

Dominion    Securities   Co 3,000,000           

East  Coast  Milling  Co 9,000,000           

X  Eastman  Kodak  Co 19,673,100           

•  Electric  Boat  Co 7,041,000 

*  Electric  Co.  of  America 20,368,400           

*  Electric   Storage  Battery  Co 16,250,000           

X  Electric  Vehicle  Co 16,800,000  1,675,000 

X  Empire  Steel  &  Iron  Co 4,462,500           

X  Fairmont  Coal   Co 12,000,000  6,000,000 

Federal  Telephone  Co. 10,000,000           

Fisheries  Co 2,532,757  500,000 

X  General  Chemical  Co 16.821,500           

X  General  Electric  Co 45,000,000           

Great  Lakes  Towing  Co 3,627,850           

*  Great  Western  Cereal  Co 3,000,000  1,500,000 

X  Harbison- Walker  Refractories  Co 22,250,000  3,500,000 

X  Herring-Hall  Marvin    Safe   Co 2,300,000           

Heywood  Bros.  &  Wakefield  Co 6,000,000           

•  Hydraulic  Press  Brick  Co 3,000,000           

*  Illinois   Brick   Co 7,500,000           

Indianapolis  Breweries  Co 1,350,000  800,000 

International   Elevating  Co 2,200,000           

International  Emery  &  Corundum  Co..  1,150,000  500,000 

X  International  Fire  Engine  Co 6,500,000           

International  Navigation   Co 14,205,000  13,686,000 

International  Nickel  Co 24,000,000  10,000,000 

X  International  Paper   Co 39,849,400  9,169,000 

International  Power  Co 7,000,000  225,000 

X  International  Pulp  Co 5,000,000           

X  International  Salt  Co 30,000,000  3,000,000 

X  International   Silver    Co 15,051,700  3,840,000 

X  International   Steam    Pump   Co 27,500,000  3,650,000 

•  Jeflferson  &  Clearfield  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  .  .  3,000,000  3,000,000 

Johns   (H.  W.)   -Manville  Co 3,000,000           

Jones  (Frank)  Brewing  Co.,  Ltd 4,000,000  2,500,000 

X  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co 30,000,000           

X  Kanawha  &  Hocking  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  . .  3,500,000  2,750,000 

X  Keystone  Coal  &  Coke  Co 2,500,000           

♦  Keystone  Watch  Case  Co 3,240,000  ^      

*  Kirby  Lumber  Co 10,000,000  .        

Knickerbocker    Ice   Co.,   Chicago 7,000,000  1,962,000 

X  Lackawanna  Iron  &  Steel  Co 20,000,000  1,800,000 

Light,  Heat  and  Power  Corporation 934,300  100,000 

X  Magnus    Metal    Co 2,000,000           

X  Manufacturers  &  Consumers'  Coal  Co. . .  5,000,000           

Manville  Co 6,000,000           

Maryland  Brewing  Co 5,000,000  9,125,000 

Massachusetts  Breweries  Co 6,500,000  1,200,000 

♦  Massachusetts  Electric  Companies 29,350,500  2,700,000 

Medina  Quarry  Co 2,000,000  1,140,000 

Metropolitan    Securities   Co 30,000,000           

Milwaukee  &  Chicago  Breweries,  Ltd.  .  .  7,548,500  3,500,000 

X  Mississippi  Wire  Glass  Co 1,500,000           

X  Monongahela  River  Con.  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  30,000,000  9,470,000 

X  National  Asphalt  Co. .  .* 19,600,000  35,963,000 

X  National  Biscuit  Co 53,061,100  1,683,000 

X  National  Carbon   Co 10,000,000           

X  National  Casket  Co. •       6,000,000 

X  National  Enameling  &  Stamping  Co 23,838,400           


2BB  APPENDICES. 


Name  of  Company.  Capital  Stock         Bonded  Debt 

Outstanding.  Outsfanding. 

X  National  Fire   Proofing   Co .$12,500,000 .' 

X  National  Glass    Co 2..317.000 

X  National  Lead  Co 29.809,400 

X  National  Roofing  &  Corrugating  Co....  5,000,000 

X  National   Saw  Co 1,000,000 

X  National   Sugar  Refining  Co 20,000,000 

X  New  England  Breweries  Co 2,050,000 

*  New  England  Brick  Co 3,100,000 

X  New  England  Cotton  Yarn   Co 10.000,000 

New  York  Breweries  Co.,  Ltd 3,000,000 

New  York  Dock  Co 17,000,000 

New  York  &  Kentucky  Co 2.000,000 

X  Niles  Bement-Pond  Co 7,000,000 

Norfolk  Refrigerating,  Storage  &  Ice  Co.  1,000,000 

North  American   Company 12,000,000 

Northern  Commercial  Co 1,622,800 

Northern  Securities  Co 400,000,000 

Ohio  &  Indiana  Con.  Nat.  &  Ilium.  Gas  Co.  9,000,000 

*  Otis  Elevator  Co .  10,850,000 

X  Pacific  Coast  Biscuit  Co 2,950,000 

Pacific  Coast  Co 12,145,800 

X  Pacific  Hardware  &  Steel  Co 10,000,000 

Paterson  Brewing  &  Malting  Co 3,000,000 

Peninsular  &  Occidental  g.  S.  Co 2,000,000 

Pennsylvania  Central  Brewing  Co 5,600,000 

X  Pennsylvania  Furnace    Co 2,100,000 

X  Pennsylvania   Steel   Co 27,250,000 

Peoples'  Brewing  Co.  of  Trenton.  .......  1,100,000 

.-  Pepperell  Mfg.   Co 2,556,000 

Pittsburg  Brewing  Co ;  19,500,000 

X  Pittsburgh  Coal  Co.  .~ 59,731,900 

X  Pittsburgh  Stove  &  Range  Co 2,000,000 

X  Pittsburgh  Valve  Foundry  &  Con.  Co..  1,150,000 

Planters'   Compress   Co 10,000,000 

Pneumatic    Signal    Co 3,000,000 

*  Pressed   Steel  Car  Co 25,000,000 

*  Pullman   Company 74,000.000 

*  Quaker  Oats  Co 11,500,000 

Railways  Company  General 1,200,000 

X  Railway  Steel   Spring  Co 20,000,000 

Railroad   Securities   Co 8,000,000 

*  Reece  Buttonhole  Machine  Co 1,000,000 

X  Republic  Iron  &  Steel  Co 48,204,000 

X  Rochester  Optical  &  Camera  Co. 2,600,000 

Rock  Island  Company 150,000,000 

X  Rocky  Mountain  Paper  Co 1,350,000 

Rogers    (Wm.   A.),   Ltd 1,350.000 

X  Royal  Baking  Powder  Co 20,000,000 

X  Rubber  Goods  Mfg.  Co 24,993,100 

St.  Louis  Breweries,  Ltd 8,766,000 

Safety  Car  Heating  &  Lighting  Co 4,125,000 

Sanitary   Laundry   Co 2,000,000 

Sea  Coast  Packing  Co 8,000,000 

X  Sloss-Sheffield  Steel  &  Iron  Co 14,200,000 

X  Somerset  Coal  Co 4,000,000 

X  Southera  Car  &  Foundry  Co 2,000,000 

X  Southern  Cotton  Oil  Co 10,000,000 

Springfield    Breweries,    Ltd 2,300,000 

*  Standard  Carbide   Gas   Co 5,000,000 

X  Standard  Chain  Co 2,308,600 

X  Standard  Milling  Co '.  11,500,000 

X  Standard  Oil   Co 97,500,000 

X  Standard  Rope  &  Twine  Co 12,000,000 

*  Standard  Sanitary  Mfg.  Co 3,973,000 

X  Standard  Table  Oilcloth  Co. 8,000,000 

*  Standard  Typewriter  Co 1,000,000 


APPENDICES.  297 


Capital  Stock  Bonded  Debt 

Name  of  Company.                           Outstanding.  Outstanding. 

X  Steei  Tired  Wheel  Co $4,000,000           

X  Stillwell-Bierce  &  Smltli-Vaile  Co 1,012,100  $300,000 

Sterling  Co 1,875,000           

X  Susquehanna  Iron  &  Steel  Co 1,500,000  300,000 

X  Tennessee  Coal,  Iron  &  R.  R.  Co 22,553,060  12,793,000 

X  Trenton    Potteries   Co 3,000,000           

X  Union  Bag  &  Paper  Co 27,000,000 

X  Union  Carbide  Co, 6,000,000  500,000 

X  United  Box,  Board  &  Paper  Co 30,000,000           

X  United  Button  Co 3,000,000           

X  Union  Steel   &   Chain    Co 1,101,900           

X  Union  Switch  &  Signal  Co 1,495,550  530,000 

X  Union  Typewriter  Co 18,000,000           

United  Breweries  Co 11,063,000  3,413,000 

X  United  Copper   Co 50,000,000           

United  Electric   Securities  Co 1,500,000  2,231,000 

X  United  Engineering  &  Foundry   Co.  . .  .  5,550,000           

United  Fruit  Co 12,369,500  3,000,000 

United  Gas  &  Electric  Co 1,600,000  600,000 

United  Gas  Improvement  Co. 28,250,000           

X  United  Matchless  Machinery  Co 1,010,000           

United  Power  &  Transportation  Co.  .  .  .  3,125,000           

United  Railways  Co.  of  St.  Louis 32,411,200  28,272,000 

X  United   Shoe  Machinery   Co 20,656,575           

X  United  States  Bobbin  &  Shuttle  Co 1,651,000  300,000 

United  States  Brewing  Co.,  Ltd 3,500,000  2,000,000 

X  United  States  Cast  Iron  Pipe  &  F'nd.  Co  25,000,000           

X  United  States  Cotton  Duck  Corp 13,100,000           

X  United  States  Envelope  Co 4,500,000  2,000,000 

X  United  States  Finishing  Co 3,000,000  1,750,000 

X  United  States  Glass   Co 4.148,100           

United  States  Gypsum   Co. 7,500,000           

X  United  States  Leather    Co 125,164,600  5,280,000 

X  United  States  Paving  Co 2,000,000           

United  States  Printing  Co 3,376,300           

United   States  Realty  &  Construction  Co.  66,000,000           

X  United  States  Reduction  &  Refining  Co.  9,808,300  3,000,000 

X  United  States  Rubber  Co 47,191,500  12,000,000 

X  United  States  Shipbuilding   Co 45,000,000  9,000,000 

X  United  States  Steel  Corporation 1,018,809,300  358,376,636 

United  States  Voting  Machine  Co .  1,000,000           

X  United  Wire  &  Supply  Co 1,000,000 

X  Universal  Tobacco  Co 10,000,000           

X  Utica  Steam  &  Mohawk  Val.  Cotton  Mills  2,000,000           

X  Virginia  Carolina  Chemical  Co 39,948,400           

X  Virginia  Iron,  Coal  &  Coke  Co 8,970,000  10,000,000 

X  Vulcan    Detinning   Co 3,500,000           

X  Washburn  Wire  Co 3,750,000           

Western   Stone  Co 2,250,000  488,000 

Western  Union   Telegraph   Co 120,912,360  25,139,000 

*  Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co 10,950,000           

•Westinghouse  Aut.  Air  &  Steam  Coup.  Co.  5,000,000 

X  Westinghouse  Electric  &  Mfg.  Co 14,788,276  3,200,000 

X  Wisconsin  Lime  &  Cement  Co 5,000,000           

X  Yellow  Pine   Co 1,845,700           


$5,803,231,600         $1,169,^17,251 

Total   Stocks * $5,803,231,600 

Total   Bonds 1,169,217,251 


Total   Capitalization $6,972,448,851 

Number  of  Trusts  287. 


29&  APPENDICES, 


The  foregoing  list  embraces  287  industrial  combinations  or  trusts, 
and  includes  practically  everything  of  importance  in  the  United  States. 
Of  these  trusts,  those  marked  "x"  enjoy  direct  tariff  benefits  in  more 
or  less  degree.     There  are  168  of  them. 

Those  marked  "*"  probably  receive  some  benefit  from  the  tariff. 
There  are  38  of  these.  Two  hundred  and  six  trusts,  then,  are  more  or 
less  tariff  protected.  The  products  of  most  of  the  remaining  81  trusts 
are  on  the  tariff  list,  but  their  protection  is  only  nominal. 

Of  this  list  of  trusts,  21  derive  their  strength  chiefly  from  patent 
rights;  28  are  based  on  municipal  or  other  franchises,  rights  of  way, 
etc.;  19  are  based  on  control  of  coal  and  other  lands,  mines,  ore  de- 
posits, etc.,  exclusively.  The  balance  of  the  unprotected  trusts  have 
in  most  cases  some  other  element  of  monopoly  which  contributes  to 
their  strength.  Where  the  element  of  monopoly  is  small,  the  general 
financial  standing  of  the  trust  in  nearly  all  cases,  is  weak. 

TOTAL  CAPITALIZATION  OF  168  TARIFF  PROTECTED  TRUSTS. 

Stocks $4,182,812,902 

Bonds   914,081,110 

Total  .  . .- $5,096,894,012 

TOTAL   CAPITALIZATION   OF   119   OTHER  TRUSTS. 

Stocks $1,580,418,698 

Bonds   255,136,100 

Total $1,835,554,798 

Proportion  of  trusts  enjoying  tariff  benefits,  59  per  cent. 

Proportion  of  capital  in  trusts  enjoying  tariff  benefits,  74  per  cent. 

Tolal  capitalization  of  206  trusts  more  or  less  protected  by  tariff, 
$5,571,616,153. 

Total  capitalization  of  81  trusts  with  little  or  no  protection,  $1,380,- 
832,657. 

Proportion  of  trusts  not  protected,  28  per  cent. 

Proportion  of  capital  in  trusts  not  protected,  19  per  cent. 

ESTIMATED  STOCK  OF  GOLD  AND  SILVER  IN   UNITED 

STATES. 

Per 
Gold.     capita. 

1893 $597,697,685   8.93  1893 

1896 599,597,964   8.40  1896 

1905 1,357,881,186  16.31  1905 


Per 

Silver. 

capita. 

$615,861,484 

9.20 

628,728,071 

8.81 

686,401,168 

8.24 

$1,930,996,723 

26.25 

$2,555,176,835  33.64 

PRODUCTION  OF  GOLD. 

Gold.            Value.                                      Silver.  Value. 

1893 $35,955,000      1893 $46,800,000      

1896 53,088,000      1896 39,654,600      .. 

1904 80,464,000      1904 33,456,000      


$169,507,000     $119,910,600 


APPENDICES. 


299 


GOLD  AND   SILVER  STATISTICS. 

Official  Table  of  Stock  of  Coin  in  the  United  States  June  30,  1905. 


Item. 

Estimated  stock  of  coin  June 
.30,     1904 

Net  imports  United  States 
coin  fiscal  year  1905 

United  States  coin  returned 
in  transports  from  the 
riiilippine  Islands,  not  re- 
corded at  the  custom- 
house, fiscal  year  1905 .  . . 

Coinage,  fiscal  year  1905... 


Gold. 
$1,285,080,291 


79,983,692 


Silver. 

$674,857,600 
302,129 


0843,142 
9,123,971 


Total. 

,959,937,891 
302,129 


843,142 
89,107,663 


Total     $1,365,063,983]   $685,126,842]  $2,050,190,825 

i  I  I 


Los> 


Net  exports  United  States 
coin  fiscal  year  1905.  . 

United  States  and  Hawai- 
ian coin  melted  for 
recoiuage   (face  value). 

United  States  coin  esti- 
mated to  have  been  used 
in   the   arts 


52,172,615 
3,431,211 
3,500,000 


1,973,788 
100,000 


52,172,615 
5,404,999 
3.600,000 


Total 


$59,103,826 


$2,073,7881        $61,177,614 


Estimated  stock  of  coin 
in  the  United  States 
June  30,   1905 


$1,305,960,157 


$683,053,054 


$1,989,013,211 


a  Of  this  amount  $437,578  were  in  one-dollar  pieces. 

Note. — The  number  of  standard  silver  dollars  coined  to  June  30,  1905, 
was  570,272,610,  which,  added  to  the  Hawaiian  dollar  coinage  of  500,000, 
plus  the  number  imported  from  the  Philippine  Islands — 150,000 — and  the 
number  returned  in  Government  transports  from  the  Philippine  Islands — 
437,578 — equals  571,360,188.  Since  July  1,  1898,  the  number  of  standard 
silver  dollars  exported  in  transports  has  been  2,495,000,  and  since  1883 
the  number  melted  has  been  183,083  (this  report,  page  21),  and  the  number 
of  Hawaiian  dollars  melted  to  June  30,  1905,  has  been  453.240,  a  total 
disposition  of  3,131,323,  leaving  in  the  United  States  June  30,  1905, 
568,228,865  standard  silver  dollars,  and  $114,824,189  in  subsidiary  silver 
coins. — Mint  Report,  1905. 


300 


APPENDICES. 


WORLD'S  STOCK 

The  monetary  systems  and  an  estimate  of  the  approximate  stocli 
of  the  world  at  the  close  of  the  calendar  year  1904  are  shown  in  th< 
being  used  only  in  the  absence  of  official  information. 


Monetary  Systems  and  Approximate  Stocks  of  Money,  in  tlie  Aggregate  an^ 


a 

Monetary 
unit. 

Popula- 
tion. 

Stock  of  gold.               1 

Coimtry. 

In  banks 
and  pub- 
lic treas- 
uries. 

In  circu- 
lation. 

Total. 

United  States 

Austria  Hungary  . 
Belgium 

Gold.. 
..do.. 
..do. . 

Dollar 

Crown 

Franc 

Pound  sterling 

Dollar 

Pound  sterling 
Pound  sterling 

and  rupee. 
Pound  sterling 

Dollar 

Leva 

Thou- 
sands. 
82,600 
48,600 
7,000 

5,700 

5,800 

43,500 

295,200 

7,100 

5,300 

3.700 

1,600 

2,600 

9,800 

2,800 

39,000 

56,400 

2,400 

1,300 

33,200 

49,800 

13,600 

5,400 

2,300 

5,400 

6,300 

128,200 

2,600 

5,200 

5,200 

1,800 

16,000 

3,200 

3,900 

1,300 

300 

100 

100 

600 

4,600 

1,000 

2,600 

18,700 

5,200 

3,300 

24,000 

4,100 
330,100 

Thou- 
sands, 
a  $887,800 
b  240,000 
b  19.100 

b 111,600 
b  52,500 
b  194,000 
e  53,300 

b  41 .000 

Thou-        Thou- 
sands,       sands. 
$460,400  $1,348,20( 
b  65.000!  b305  00C 
d  10.900  bd    30.00( 

d  17,000  bd  128.600 

(c)            b  52,50( 

d  339,200    d  533,200 

d  210,600  de  263,900 

b  15,000      b  56,000 

(c) 

British  Empire: 

Australasia 

Canada 

United  Kingdom 
India 

South  Africa  . . . 
Straits  Settle- 
ments f 

..do.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 

..do.. 

SUver. 
Gold.. 
..do.. 

Bulgaria 

g  1,900 

d  20,000 

b  17,400 

d  12,000 

f  4,400 

b  519,700 

b  197,300 

b  5,400 

b  1,000 

b  131,400 

b  42,700 

b  8,600 

b  27,200 

b  6,800 

b  5,300 

b  10,400 

b  526,900 

b  3,300 

b  1,000 

b  72,100 
b  400 

(c) 

d  75,000 

(c) 

b406  700 

g  1,900 
d  20  000 

Cuba 

Peseta 

Crown 

Piaster 

Markkaa 

Franc 

Mark 

..do.. 

b  17,400 

d  87,000 

g  4.400 

Finland.*.... . ..  .  . 

..do.. 
..do. . 

France  

do 

Ti  Q9A  A(\r\ 

Germany 

.do 

d  689  400  M  ssfiTOft 

Greece 

.do.  . 

Drachma 

Gourde 

b'200 

b  10,100 
(c) 
b  9,300 
(c) 

b  256,800 

b5  600 

Haiti 

..do. . 

bl  000 

Italy 

..do. . 

b  131.400 

..do.. 
..do. . 

Yen 

b  52.800 

Peso 

b  8.600 

Netherlands 

Norway. .  .-r 

..do.. 
..do.. 

Florin 

Crown 

Milreis 

Lei 

b  36.500 
b  6.800 

Portugal 

.  do   . 

b5  300 

Roumania 

..do.. 
..do.. 
..do. . 

b  10.400 

Russia 

Ruble 

Dinar 

Tical 

b  783.700 
b  3,300 

Siam 

..do.. 

b  1 .000 

South  American 
States: 
Argentina 

..do.. 

Peso 

b  72,100 

Bolivia 

Silver. 

Gold.. 

.do.. 

Boliviano 

Milreis 

Peso 

b  400 

Brazil 

(c) 

ChUe 

b  9,500 

b200 

b  1,700 

(c) 

b  9,500 

..do.. 

Dollar 

Sucre 

b200 

Ecuador  

do 

b  1,700 

Guiana  (British) 

..do.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 

Pound  sterling 

Florin 

Franc 

Peso 

(c) 

Guiana  (Dutch) 
Guiana  (French) 

b  1,000 

(c) 

bi'ooo 

(c) 

blOO 
b  3,900 
b  11,200 
b700 
b  72,100 
b  17,000 
b  20,700 
d  10,000 

b  2,000 

n 

(c) 
b  4,800 

(c) 
b  3,200 
d  8.900 
d  40,000 

(c) 

blOO 

Peru 

..do.. 
..do.. 
..do.. 

Sol 

b  3,900 

Peso 

b  11,200 

Venezuela 

Bolivar 

Peseta 

Crown 

Franc 

Piaster 

Peso 

b5.500 

Spain 

.do  . 

b  72.100 

Sweden 

..do.. 

b  20.200 

Switzerland 

Turkey 

Central  American 
States 

..do.. 
..do.. 

Silver! 
.do. 

bd  29.600 
d  50,000 

b  2.000 

China 

Tael 

(c) 

Total 

1.298,500 

3,364,600 

2,622,500 

5.987,100 

a  In  United  States  Treasury  and  national  banks. 

6  Official   information  furnished  through  United   States  representatives. 

c  No  information. 

d  Estimate,  Bureau  of  the  Mint. 

€  The  figures  for  the  total  stock  of  gold  in  India  are  for  the  net  imports 
since  1893-94  the  production  of  the  country.  The  amount  in  the  Govern- 
ment Treasury  is  from  official  advices.  The  net  imports  of  gold  since 
1835-36 — when  the  records  begin — amount  to  $817,374,610  and  the  pro- 
duction recorded  to  $103,209,754.  The  tide  of  gold  and  silver  has  been 
flowing  into  India  for  centuries. 


APPENDICES. 


301 


OF  MONEY. 

of  gold,  silver,  and  uncovered  paper  money  in  the  diffetent  countries 
following  table  compiled  from  official  and  unofficial  sources,  the  latter 


Per  Capita,  in  the  Principal  Countries  of  the  World,  December  31,1904. 


Stock  of  Silver 

• 

Uncovered 
paper. 

Per  capita. 

Full 
tender. 

T(imited 
tender. 

Total. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Paper. 

Total. 

Thousands. 
$573,200 
(c) 
d  15,000 

Thousands. 
$111,900 
b  79,700 
d  9.700 

b  6.100 

b  6.700 

b  113.400 

Thousands. 
$685,100 
b  79,700 
d  24,700 

b  6,100 

b  6,700 

b  113,400 

b  603.800 

b  20.000 

b  19,200 

g  1,900 

d  5,000 

b  6,200 

b  15,000 

g400 

b  411,100 

b  210,200 

blOO 

b  2,500 

b  25,600 

b  41,300 

b  52,800 

b  56,800 

b  3,000 

b  8,400 

b600 

b  101,900 

b  1,500 

b  22.300 

(0 
b  3.800 

b300 
b  2,900 

(c) 

blOO 

(c) 

b200 

(c) 

(0 

b  2,400 

b  3,200 

b  4,600 

b  173,700 

b  7,600 

h  10,700 

d  40.000 

b  5.600 
d  350.000 

Thousands 

$559,900 

b  54,700 

b  111,900 

$16.33 
6.27 
4.28 

22.56 

9.05 

12.26 

.89 

7.89 

' '  *  '.5i ' 

12.50 

6.69 

8.87 

1.57 

23.75 

15.72 

2.33 

.77 

3.96 

1.06 

.63 

6.76 

2.96 

.98 

165 

6.11 

1.27 

.19 

13.86 
.22 

*  2.97' 

.05 

1.31 

$8.30 
1.64 
3.53 

1.07 
1.16 
2.61 
2.05 

2.81 

3.62 

.51 

3.12 

2.39 

1.53 

.14 

10.54 

'  3.73 

.04 

1.92 

.77 

.83 

3.89 

10.52 

1.30 

1.56 

.10 

.79 

.57 

4.29 

■  2.ii' 

.02 
.91 

'"".67" 

$6.78 

1.13 

15.99 

"11.22' 
2.71 
.11 

3.77 
1.11 

*4'.ii* 

'3'.25' 

2.84 
3.01 
6.75 
2.69 
4..53 
2.03 
3.59 
9.48 
2.69 
11.29 
1.79 

'".96' 

55.02 
1.78 

23.00 
9.59 
190.00 
1.00 
2.00 
2.00 
6.00 

17.50 

"6.69' 
5.63 
6.97 

13.02 

$31.41 

9.04 

23.80 

23.63 

b  65,100 

b  118,100 

b  32,400 

21.43 

"b'eos.soo* 

17.58 
3.05 

b  20.000 

b  3,200 

g  1,000 

d  5,000 

b  6,200 

b  15,000 

g400 

b  63,700 

b  173,100 

10.70 

b  16,000 

b  20,000 
g  4.100 

7.39 

2.13 

15.62 

b  10.700 

13.19 

10.40 

'b347',406' 

b  37,100 

b  100 

g  9.100 

b  110,900 

b  169,800 

b  16,200 

b  3,500 

b  150,700 

b  101.200 

b  48.900 

b  51.200 

b  6.200 

b  61,000 

b  11,300 

4.96 
37.13 
22.46 

9.12 

b  1,000 
b  11,500 

b  1.500 
b  14,100 
b  41.300 

5.38 
9.26 
3.92 

b  52.800 

8  11 

b  52,800 

b  4,000 
b  3,000 
b  8.400 
b600 
b  101,900 
b  1.500 

26.76 
6.95 

13.83 

(c) 

3.54 
6.90 

(0 
b  22,300 

b  2,500 

2.80 
4.48 

b  286.100 

b  3.200 

b  368.100 

b  30,700 

b  741,000 

b  1,300 

b600 

b200 

b600 

b  10,500 

68.88 

b  3.800 

4.11 

b300 
b  2,900 

23.02 

(c) 

13.47 
190.05 

(c) 

blOO 

2  38 
2.00 

b200 

10.00 

2.00 

14.00 

6.00 

.17 

.85 

11.20 

.27 

3.85 

3.89 

8.97 

2.08 

.49 

'"■.52* 
3.20 
1.77 
9.29 
1.46 
3.24 
1.67 

1.36 
1.06 

17.67 

b  2,400 

b  3.200 

b  4,600 

b  173,700 

b  7,600 

h  10,700 

d  10.000 

1.37 

14.40 

2.04 

(c) 

b  125,100 
b  29.300 
b  23,000 

19.83 
10.98 

(0 
d  30.000 

19.18 
3.75 

b  5.600 

b  53,400 

14.87 

d  350,000 

1.06 

2.123.300 

1.007.100 

3.130,400 

3.392.500 

4.61 

2.41 

2.61 

9.63 

f  Includes  Straits  Settlements,  the  Malay  States,  Ceylon,  and  Johore. 

g  L  Economiste  Europeen,  January,  1905. 

h  C  Cramer  Frey. 

i  Except  Costa  Rica  and  British  Honduras — gold  standard  countries. 

Note — The  value  of  the  monetary  stock  of  silver  standard  countries  has 
been  changed  to  conform  to  the  decline  in  silver  values.  The  monetary 
stock  of  Mexico  and  other  countries  where  the  Mexican  dollar  circulates 
is  given  in  Mexican  dollars  at  bullion  value. 


302 


APPENDICES. 


The  foregoing  table  of  the  world's  stock  of  money  is  for  December 
31,  1904.  It  is  submitted  as  giving  the  best  information  obtainable, 
but  imsatisfactory  in  many  respects,  owing  to  defective  returns.  The 
world's  stock  of  gold  in  monetary  use  foots  up  $5,987,100,000;  of 
silver,  $3,130,400,000,  and  of  uncovered  paper,  $3,392,500,000,  show- 
ing, as  compared  with  the  estimate  of  December  31,  1903,  an  increase 
in  gold  of  $301,400,000,  decrease  in  silver  of  $82,800,000,  and  in 
uncovered  paper  of  $119,000,000. 

The  most  important  gains  in  gold  were  as  follows:  India, 
$200,700,000;  United  States,  $27,800,000;  Germany,  $85,300,000; 
Egypt,  $27,000,000;  Austria-Hungary,  $18,200,000;  Netherlands, 
$8,100,000.  Countries  showing  a  decrease  were  France,  $41,900,000 
(France  has  submitted  a  new  estimate  which  this  Bureau  adopts  as 
official),  and  Japan,  $17,000,000.  The  decrease  shown  in  silver  is 
due  to  a  reduction  in  the  estimates  for  Siam  and  Italy. 

On  December  31,  1904,  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  Germany, 
Austria-Hungary,  France,  and  Russia,  with  a  total  population  of 
398,300,000,  held  $4,783,200,000,  or  over  79  per  cent,  of  the  world's 
stock  of  gold. 

Coinage  of  Nations. 


Calendar  year. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

1902 

$220,405,125 
240,496,274 
455,427,085 

$193,715,362 
208,367,849 
172,270,379 

1903     ' 

1904 

The  above  figures  represent,  as  nearly  as  this  Bureau  has  been  able 
to  ascertain,  the  total  value  of  the  gold  and  silver  coinages  executed 
in  the  world  during  the  years  given. 

The  total  of  these  coinages  does  not  correctly  represent  the  amount 
of  new  gold  and  new  silver  made  into  coins  during  the  year,  for  the 
reason  that  the  coinages  as  reported  include  the  value  of  domestic  and 
foreign  coins  melted  for  recoinage,  as  well  as  old  material,  plate,  etc., 
used  in  coinage. 

COINAGE  OP  Gold  and  Silver  op  the  Mints   op  the  World  for  the 
Calendar  Years  since  1873. 


Gold. 


Silver. 


Calendar  year. 


Fine 
ounces. 


Value. 


Fine 
ounces. 


Value. 


1873  12,462,890  257,630,802  101,741,421  131,544,464 

1874  6,568,279  135,778,387  79,610,875  102,931,232 

1875  9,480,892  195,987,428  92,747,118  119,915,467 

1876  10,309,645  213,119,278  97,899,525  126,577,164 

1877  9,753,196  201,616,466  88,449,796  114,359,332 

1878  9,113,202  188,386,611  124,671,870  161,191,913 

1879  4,390,167  90,752,811  81,124,555  104,888,313 

1880  7,242,951  149,725,081  65,442,074  84,611,974 

1881  7,111,864  147,015,275  83,539,051  108,010,086 

1882  4,822,851  99,697,170  85,685,996  110,785,934 

1883  5,071,882  104,845,114  84,541,904  109,306,705 

1884  4,810,061  99,432,795  74,120,127  95,832,084 

1885  4,632,273  95,757,582  98,044,475  126,764,574 

1886  4,578,310  94,642,070  96,566,844  124,854,101 

1887  6,046,510  124,992,465  126,388,502  163,411,397 

1888  6,522,346  134,828,855  104,354,000  134,922,344 

1889  8,170,611  168,901,519  107,788,256  139,362,595 

1890  7,219,725  149,244,965  117,789,228  152,293,144 

1891  5,782,463  119,534,122  100,962,049  138,294,367 

1892  8,343,387  172,473,124  120,282,947  155,517,347 

1893  11,243,342  232,420,517  106,697,783,  137,952,690 

1894  11,025,680  227,921,032  87,472,523  113,095,788 

1895  11,178,855  231,087,438  98,128,832  126,873,642 

1896  9,476,639  195,899,517  123,394,239  159,540,027 

1897 21,174,850  437,722,992  129,775,082  167,790,006 

1898  19,131,244  395,477,905  115,461,020  149,282,936 

1899  22,548,101  466,110,614  128,566,167  166,226,964 

1900 17,170,053  354,936,497  143,362,948  185,358,156 

1901  12,001,537  248,093,787  107,439,666  138,911,891 

1902  10,662,098  220,405,125  149,826,725,  193,715,362 

1903  11,634,007  240,496,274  161,159,508  208,367,849 

1904  22,031,285  455,427,085  0145,332^35  172^2j;0^379 

Total 321,711,196  6,650,360,703^8,434,367,441  4,424,760,227 

a   Actual  weight  consumed  in  coinage. 

— Report  of  the  Director  of  the  Mint,  1905. 


APPENDICES. 


303 


Estimated  Stock  of  Gold  and  Silver  in  the  United  States  and  the  Amount 
Per  Capita  at  the  Close  of  each  Fiscal  Year  since  1873. 


Fiscal  year 

ended 
June  30 — 

Population. 

Total  coin  and  bullion. 

Per  capita. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

SUver. 

Total 
metallic. 

1873 

1874 

1875 

1876 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 

1886 

1887 

1888 

1889 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904.- 

1905 

41,677,000 
42,796,000 
43,951,000 
45,137.000 
46,353,000 
47,598,000 
48,866,000 
50,155,783 
51.316,000 
52.495,000 
53,693,000 
54,911,000 
56,148,000 
57,404,000 
58,680,000 
59,974,000 
61,289,000 
62,622,250 
63,975.000 
65,520,000 
66,946,000 
68,397,000 
69,878,000 
71,390,000 
72,937,000 
74,522,000 
76.148,000 
76.891,000 
77,754,000 
79,117,000 
80,847,000 
81.867,000 
83,259,000 

$135,000,000 
147,379,493 
121,134,906 
130,056,907 
167  ,.501,472 
213,199,977 
245,741,837 
351,841,206 
478,484,538 
506,757,715 
542,732,063 
545,500,797 
588,697,036 
590,774,461 
654.520,335 
705,818,855 
680,063,505 
695,563,029 
646,582,852 
664,275,335 
597,697,685 
627,293,201 
636,229,825 
599,597,964 
696,270,542 
861,514,780 
962,865,505 
1,034,439,264 
1,124,652,818 
1,192,395,607 
1,249,552,756 
1,327,672,672 
1,357,881,186 

$6,149,305 
10,355.478 
19,367.995 
36,415,992 
56,464.427 
88,047,907 
117,526,341 
148,522,678 
175,384,144 
203,217,124 
233,007.985 
255,568,142 
283,478,788 
312,252,844 
352,993,566 
386,611,108 
420,548,929 
463,211.919 
522,277,740 
570,313,544 
615,861,484 
624,347,757 
625,854,949 
628,728,071- 
634,509,781 
637,672,743 
639,286,743 
647,371,030 
661,205,403 
670,540,105 
677,448,933 
682,383,277 
686,401,168 

$3.23 

3.44 

2.75 

2.88 

3.61 

4.47 

5.02 

7.01 

9.32 

9.65 

10.10 

9.93 

10.48 

10.29 

11.15 

11.76 

11.09 

11.10 

10.10 

10.15 

8.93 

9.18 

9.10 

8.40 

9.55 

11.56 

12.64 

13.45 

14.47 

15.07 

15.45 

16.22 

16.31 

$0.15 
.24 
.44 
.81 
1.21 
1.85 
2.40 
2.96 
3.41 
3.87 
4.34 
4.65 
5.05 
5.44 
6.00 
6.44 
6.86 
7.39 
8.16 
8.70 
9.20 
9.13 
8.97 
8.81 
8.70 
8.56 
8.40 
8.42 
8.50 
8.48 
8.38 
8.33 
8.24 

$3.38 

3.68 

3.19 

3.69 

4.82 

6.32 

7  42 

9.97 

12.73 

13.52 

14.44 

14.58 

15.53 

15.73 

17.15 

18.20 

17.95 

18.49 

18.26 

18.85 

18.13 

18.31 

18.07 

17.21 

18.25 

20.12 

21.04 

21.87 

22.97 

23.55 

23.83 

24.55 

24.55 

304 


APPENDICES. 


No,  19. — Pboduct  of  Gold  and  Silver  in  the  United  States  from  1792 
TO  1844,  and  Annually  Since. 

(The  estimate  for  1792-1873  Is  by  R.  W.  Raymond,  commissioner  and  since 
by  Director  of  the  Mint.) 


Gold. 


Silver. 


Year. 


Fine 
ounces. 


Value. 


Fine 
ounces. 


Commercial 
Value. 


1792  to  July  31,  1834 
July    31,    1834,    to 
Dec.   31,  1844 

1845  

1846  

1847  


I         677,2501    $14,000,0001  Insignificant 


362,812 
48,762 
55,341 
43,005 


7,500,000 

1,008,000 

1,140,000 

889,000 


193,400 
38,700 
38,700 
38,700 


$253,400 
50,200 
50,300 
50,600 


Total. 


1,187,1701   24,537,090 


309,5001 


404,500 


1848 
1849 
1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
1855 
1856 
1857 
1858 
1859 
1860 
1861 
1862 
1863 
1864 
1865 
1866 
1867 
1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 


483,750 
1,935,000 
2,418,750 
2,660,625 
2,902,500 
3,144,375 
2,902,500 
2,660,625 
2,660,625 
2,660,625 
2,418,750 
2,418,750 
2,225,250 
2,080,125 
1,896,300 
1,935,000 
2,230,087 
2,574,759 
2,588,062 
2,502,196 
2,322.000 
2,394,562 
2,418,750 
2,104,312 
1,741,500 


10,000,000 
40,000,000 
50,000,000 
55,000,000 
60,000,000 
65,000,000 
60,000,000 
55,000,000 
55,000,000 
55,000,000 
50,000,000 
50,000,000 
46,000,000 
43,000,000 
39,200,000 
40,000,000 
46,100,000 
53,225,000 
53,500,000 
51,725,000 
48,000,000 
49,500,000 
50,000,000 
43,500,000 
36,000,000 


38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

38,700 

77,300 

116,000 

1,546,900 

3,480,500 

6,574,200 

8,507,800 

8,701,200 

7,734,400 

10,441,400 

9,281,200 

9,281,200 

12,375,000 

17,789,100 

22,236,300 


50,500 

50,700 

50,900 

51,700 

51,300 

52,200 

52,200 

52,000 

52,000 

52,400 

52,000 

105,100 

156,800 

2,062,000 

4,684,800 

8,842,300 

11,443,000 

11,642,200 

10,356,400 

13,866,200 

12,306,900 

12,297,600 

16,434,000 

23,588,300 

29,396,400 


Total , 


...  .  .  I  58,279,7781 1,204,750,0001  118.568,200|  157,749,900 


1873  . 

1874  . 

1875  . 

1876  ., 

1877  . 

1878  . 

1879  . 

1880  . 

1881  . 

1882  . 

1883  . 

1884  . 

1885  . 

1886  . 

1887  . 

1888  , 

1889  , 

1890  . 

1891  . 

1892  . 

1893  . 

1894  . 

1895  . 

1896  . 

1897  , 

1898  . 

1899  . 

1900  . 

1901  ■  . 

1902  , 

1903  , 

1904  , 


..I 


1,741,500 
1,620,122 
1,619,009 
1,931,575 
2,268,662 
2,477,109 
1,881,787 
1,741,500 
1,678,612 
1,572,187 
1,451,250 
1,489,950 
1,538,373 
1,686,788 
1,603,049 
1,604,478 
1,-594,775 
1,588,877 
1,604,8401 
1,597,0981 
1,739,3231 
1.910,813 
2,254,760| 
2,568,132 
2.774,9351 
3,118,.398! 
3.437,2101 
.3.829,8971 
3,805.500] 
3,870,0001 
3,560,0001 
3,892,4801 
I 


36,000,000 
33,490,900 
33,467,900 
39,929,200 
46,897,400 
51.206,400 
38,900,000 
36,000.000 
34,700,000 
32,500,000 
30,000,000 
30,800.000 
31.801,000 
34,869,000 
33,136,000 
33,167,500 
32,967,000 
32,845,000 
33,175,000 
33.015.000 
35,955,000 
39,.500,000 
46.610,000 
53.088,000 
57,363.000 
64,463,0001 
71,05.3,4001 
79.171.0001 
78,666.7001 
80.000,0001 
73,591.7001 
80,464,700 


27,650, 
28,868, 
24,5.39, 
29,996, 
30,777, 
35,022 
31,565 
30,318 
33.257 
36,196, 
35,7.32 
37,743 
39,909 
39,694 
41,721, 
45.792 
50,094 
54,516 
58.330 
63.500 
60.000, 
49,500; 
55.727 
58,834 
53,860 
54,438 
54,764 
57,647, 
55,214 
55,500 
54,300 
57,682 


.400 
,200 
,300 
,200 
.800 
.300 
.500 
,700 
.800 
,900 
.800 
,800 
.400 
,000 
,600 
.700 
,500 
,300 
,000 
.000 
,000 
.000 
,000 
,800 
.000 
,000 
,500 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,800 

I 


35,881,600 
36,917,500 
30,485,900 
34,919,800 
36,991,500 
40,401,000 
35,477,100 
34,717,000 
37.657,500 
41.105,900 
39,618,400 
41,921,300 
42,503,500 
39,482,400 
40.887,200 
43,045,100 
46,838,400 
57,242,100 
57,630,000 
55.662,500 
46.800,000 
31,422,100 
36.445,500 
39.654,600 
32.316,000 
32.118,400 
32,858,700 
35,741,100 
33,128,400 
29.415,000 
29.322,000 
33,456,000 


Total . 


71.052.989 1 1,468,793,800 1 1,442,696,300 1 1,242,063,500 


Grand  total.  .  I130.519.937|2.698.080,800|1.561,574,000|l,400.217.900 
— Report  of  the  Director  of  the  Mint  (1905). 


APPENDICES. 


305 


Premium  on  gold,  and  gold  value  of  United  States  legal-tender  notes 
from  1862  to  January  1,  1879. 


Average  cur- 

Average gold 

rency  value  of 

value  of 

gold  each 
calendar  year 

TJ.  S.  notes  each 

calendar  year 

Year. 

during  suspen- 

during suspen- 

sion of  specie 

sion  of  specie 

payments, 

payments, 

Jan.  1,  1862,  to 

Jan.  1,  1862,  to 

Jan.  1, 1879. 

Jan.  1, 1879. 

1862 

113.3 
145.2 
203.3 
157.3 
140.9 
138.2 

88.3 

1863 

68.9 

1864 

49  2 

1865 

63  6 

1866 

71 

1867 

72.4 

1868 

139.7 

71.6 

1869 

133 

75.2 

1870 

114.9 
111.7 
112.4 
113.8 
111.2 

87 

1871 

89.5 

1872 

89 

1873 

87.9 

1874 

89.9 

1875 

114.9 

87 

1876 

111.5 

89.8 

1877 

104.8 
100.8 

95.4 

1878 

99.2 

The  total  redemptions  of  notes  in  gold  and  the  exports  of  that  metal 
during  each  fiscal  year  since  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  have 
been  as  follows: 


Fiscal 

United  States 

Treasury  notes 

Total. 

1      Exports  of 

year. 

notes. 

of    1^90. 

1 

I          gold. 

1879    

$7,976,698 

$7,976,698 

3,780,638 

271,750 

$4,587,614 

1880    

3,780,638 

3,639,025 

1881    

271,750 

2,565,132 

1882    

40,000 

40,000 

32,587,880 

1883    

75,000 

75,000 

11,600,888 

1884    

590,000 
2,222,000 

590,000 
2,222,000 

41,081,957 
"8,477,892 

1885     

1886    

6,863,699 

6,863,699 

42,952,191 

1887    

4,224,073 

4,224,073 

9,701,187 

1888 

692,596 

692,596 

18,376,234 

1889    

730,143 

730,143 

59,952,285 

1890    

732,386 

732,386 

17,274,491 

1891    

5,986,070 

5,986,070 

86,362,654 

1892    

5,352,243 

$3,773,600 

9,125,843 

50,195,327 

1893    

55,319,125 

46,781,220 

102,100,345 

108,680,844 

1894    

68,242,408 

16,599,742 

84,842,150 

76,978,061 

1895    

109,783,800 

7,570,398 

117,354,198 

66,468,481 

1896 

153.307,591 

5,348,365 

158,655,956 

112,409,947 

1897 

68,372,923 

9,828,991 

78,201,914 

40,361,580 

1898    

22,301,710 

2,696,253 

24,997,963 

15,406,391 

1899     

18,645.015 

6,997,250 

25,642,265 

37,522,086 

1900    

28,637,501 

6,960,836 

35,598,337 

48,266,759 

1901    

23,776,433 

446,678 

24,223,111 

53,185,177 

1902    

17,482,590 

1,274,590 

18.757,180 

48,568,950 

1903    

7,154,718 

1,112,527 

8,267,245 

47,090,595 

1904    

11.081.068 

474,126 

11,555,194 

Total . 

623,642,178 

109.864.576 

733,506,754 

1,044,293,628 

— ^U.  S.  Treasury  Dept.  Circular,  No.  72,  July  1,  1904. 


306 


APPENDICES. 


NET  EXPORTS  UNITED  STATES  GOLD  COIN. 

The  net  exports  of  United  States  gold  coin  from  January  1,  1870, 
to  June  30,  1905,  was  $683,437,346,  as  shown  hy  the  following  table: 


Imports  and  Expobts  of  United  States  Gold  Coin. 


Period. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

Jan.  1  to  July  1, 

1870 

$6,384,250 

Fiscal  year — 
1871  

55,491,719 

1872  

40,391,357 

1873 

35,661,863 

1874 

28,766,943 

1875  

59,309,770 

1876  

27,542,861 

1877  

21,274,565 

1878  

$7,325,783 
3,654,859 

18,207,559 
7,577,422 

6,427,251 

1879  

4,120,311 

1880 '  

1,687,973 

1881  

1,741,364 

1882  

4,796,630 

8,112,265 

3,824,692 

3,352,090 

1,687,231 

5,862,509 

5,181,512 

1,403.619 

1,949,552 

2,824,146 

15,432,443 

6,074,899 

30,790,892 

10,752,673 

10,189,614 

57,728,857 

40,590,947 

7,779,123 

8,659,856 

3,311,105 

3,870,320 

1,519,756 

5,780,607 

2,236,399 

29,805,289 

1883  

4,802,454 

1884 

12,242,021 

1885   

2,345,809 

1886  

5,400,976 

1887  

3,550,770 

1888  

3,211,399 

1889  

4,143,939 

1890  

3,951,736 

1891  

67,704,900 

1892 

42,841.963 

1893  -  -  - 

101,844,087 

1894  

64,303,840 

1895 

55  096,639 

1896  

77,789,892 

1897  

23,646,565 

1898 

8,402,216 

1899  

27.425,587 

1900 

30,674,511 

1901 

8,425,947 

1902 

9,370,841 

1903 

18,041,660 

1904 

15,682,424 

1905  

54,409,014 

Total 1280,477,3601 


Net  exports. 


963^914,706 
683,437;346 


— Mint  Report,  1905,  p.  34. 


INDEX 


A 

Abroad,    evidence   from 56 

Abroad,  what  we  sell 171 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  on  who  pays  the  tariff  tax 159 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  on  Increased  cost  of  necessaries  of  life 167 

Administration,  economy  of 4 

Administration,    Republican 9 

Agreements,   International   Steel 42 

Agriculture  and  the  tariff,  Hon.  L.  F.  Livingston 168 

Agricultural  implements,  exports    of 59 

Agricultural  implements,  exported     75 

Agricultural  machinery,  Canadian  Tariff  Commission  on 168 

Agricultural  machinery,  increased    cost    of 167 

Agricultural  machinery,  sold  cheaper  abroad 58 

Alabama,  wages  in,  in  1904 , 239 

Aldrich,   Senator,   admits   it 46 

Aldrich  resolution,  purchase  of  material  for  Panama  Canal,  vote  in 

Senate  on 276 

Allison,  Senator,  commends  tariff  of  1846 31 

Amend  the  Constitution,  Roosevelt  wants  to 224 

American    citizenship 7 

Americans  to  install  Russian  telephones 143 

American  and  foreign  laborer,  productivity  of 156 

American  goods,    cheapness    of 133 

American  manufactures,  sold  cheaper  abroad 58 

American  tools,  cheaper  in  Germany 60 

•Annual  report,  Mr.  Foster,  1892,  loss  of  gold  by  export 102 

Annual  report,  1890,  Mr.  Windom .■}-ih^'i^lK\  . .  101 

Ante-election    estimates 100 

Anti-trust  act  of  1890,    proceedings    under 216-225 

Anti-trust  act  of  1800,  vote  on 213 

Anti-trust  bills.   Democrats  first  to   introduce 203 

Anti  trust  bills,  list    of 203 

Anti-Trust    Law,    Morgan 209 

Appeal  to  the  country 10 

Appendix  A 244 

Appendix  B     252 

Appendix  C 267 

Appendix  D 293 

Articles   upon   which   duty    at   the   rate  of  100 •per   cent,    and   over 

are  collected 248 

Appropriations,  extravagant,   Fifty-ninth  Congress 153 

Argument,  Hon.  Leonidas  F.  Livingston 168 

Arid  lands,  reclamation  of 7 

Army    8 

Asphalt  Trust  and  Venezuela,  Roosevelt 194 

Atkinson,  Mr.  Edward,  on  panic  of  1857 32 


308  INDEX. 


Attorney-General's  report,   comments  on 224 

Average  tariff  rates,  1791-1905 17 

Average    duty,    1821-1861 31 

Babcock    (Rep. )    gives  evidence 47 

Bacon's  amendment  to  the  Aldrich  resolution,  vote  In  Senate  on 277 

Bacon,  Senator,  on  steel  rails  cheaper  abroad 49 

Bailey  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill,  vote  in  Senate  on 270 

Balance  of  trade  against  us •. . . .  102 

Balwln  Locomotive  Wbrks  bids  for  engines  for  canal 131 

Bank  funds  turned   into   cash 110 

Bid  for  rails  for  Panama   Canal 131 

Bids  for  engines  for  Panama  Canal 131 

Big  military  and  naval  force,  Roosevelt  on 193 

Big  stick,    the   motive   behind 193 

Bishop,    Secretary,    letter  from 127 

Blackmail  collec1:ions,  Philippine,  vote  in  House  on 290 

Blaine,  Mr.,  on  tariflE   1846 21-22 

Blaine,  Mr.,  compares  American  and  foreign   labor. 156 

Blaine,  Mr.,  on  taxing  necessaries  of  life. 140 

B»aine,  Mr.,  for  free  hides 162 

Bland    amendment 209 

Bond  plate  order,   Mr.   Foster 105 

Boots  and  shoes,  prices  of 164 

Bryan    on    Roosevelt's    administration 145 

Building  material  taxed,   lizard   free 139 

Byrd,  Adam  M,,  on  increased  cost  of  agricultural  machinery ..  167 

C 

Campaign  funds,  Parker's  charge  concerning    119 

Campaign  funds,  Parker's  charge  concerning    proven 122 

Canal,  bids  for  engines  for 131 

Canal,    Isthmian 7 

Canal,  Panama,  bid  for  rails  for 131 

Canadian  Tariff  Commission  on  agricultural  machinery 168 

Cannon,  Mr.,  denounces  ship  subsidies 132 

Cannon,  Speaker,  opinion    of 73 

Cannon,  Speaker,  statistics 64 

Capital  and  labor 3 

Carpet  manufacturing  Increased 27 

Cash  and  gold  needed 100 

Cash  paid  over  to  Harrison  by  Cleveland  administration 110 

Cash  register   case 216 

Cash  turned  over 103 

Cat  out  of  the  bag,  Shaw.lets  the 38 

Cement,    foreign    bought 127 

Chadwick,  Cassie,  goes  to  prison,  but  etc 174 

Changes,   Republican  tariff 35 

Chandler,  Senator,  on  ship  subsidies  and  high  tariff 132 

Cheaper  abroad,  Republicans    admit    selling ^ 45 

Cheaper  abroad,  shipbuilding    material 52 

Cheaper  abroad,  steel    rails , : 49 


INDEX.  309 


Cheapest  iron  and  steel 44 

Cheapness  of  American  goods 133 

Chinese  Exclusion  Act,  vote  in  House  on 281 

Citizenship,    American 7 

Civil    Service 8 

Civii  War  tariff  to  be  temporary 33 

Claims,  political,  New  York  City  Bank 175 

Clay,  Henry,  on  who  pays  the  tariff  tax. 159 

Cleveland,  end  of  first  administration 103 

Coal,  free,  resolution  on 161 

Coal  output  in  Pennsylvania  increased 25 

Coal,  production    increased 25 

Coinage  of  gold  and  silver 302 

Comparison,    tariffs    1789-1906 13-16 

Combines,  trusts  and , 39 

Combinations  and  trusts  unlawful 6 

Combination,  Mr.  Sherman  on 161 

Commerce  Act  1887,  conference  report  on 147 

Comments  on  Attorney-General's  report 224 

Commerce  Act  1887,  history  of 146 

Commercial  failures,   1880-1903 107 

Commission,    recommendations   of 151 

Comparison  of  export  and  home  prices 244 

Comparisons  on    labor 158 

Comparisons,  some  notable 25 

Condition  of  Treasury  1889,  1893,  1897 103 

Conference  report  on  Commerce  Act  1887 347 

Confess,  Republican  minority * 98 

Constitution,  Roosevelt  wants  to  amend 224 

Constitutional   guarantees 4 

Contract  Labor  Law,  vote  in  House  on 281 

Contract  with  trusts.  Federal  Government 4 

Control,  Republicans  vote  to  give  trusts 127 

Copy  of  Foster  bond  plate  order 105 

Corporations,   industrial   organized 39 

Cortelyou  scandal 119,  126 

Cost  of  living  compared 165 

Corrupt  deal,  New  York  City  Bank,  etc 175 

Corruption,  Republican,  and  life  insurance  scandal 119 

Corruption  fund,  Parker's  charge  of 119 

Corruption  fund,  Parker's  charge  of,    proven 122 

Cost  of  living  higher. 66 

Country,  appeals  to  the 10 

Counsel  for  Government  incompetent 218 

Counting  cash,  new  system  by  Mr.  Foster , , .  - ,  96 

Courier-Journal  (Louisville)  on  free  building  material 140 

Cramp,  Mr.  C.  H.,  on  ship  subsidies  and  high  tariff 131 

Criminal    prosecutions 216 

Culberson  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill,  vote  in  Senate  on 271 

Cut,    export   prices 143 

D 

Decisions,  Supreme  Court 150 

Deficit  in  1893  concealed  by  using  national  bank  funds 112 


ZW  INDEX. 


Deficit  confessed   by   Foster 99 

Deficit    (Republican),   $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000 98 

Deficits,  iiow    made 155 

Deficits,  quarterly,   ofllcial   proof  of Ill 

Deficits  under  the  McKinley  tariff 109 

Democratic  party    platform    1904 3 

Democratic  platforms  on  tariffs  and  trusts 19 

Democratic  policies,    Roosevelt  appropriates 145 

Democrats  excluded    36 

Democrats  first    again loO 

Democrats  first  to  introduce  anti-trust  bills 203 

Democrats  first  to  recognize  organized  labor 178-188 

Democrats    inherited   discouraging   conditions  from   Harrison    admin- 
istration   112 

Democrat,  why  I  am 11 

Democracy,  fundamental  principles  of 10 

Departmental   scandals 172 

Depew,  Senator,  on  the  power  of  fifty  men 144 

Development,    domestic 7 

Dingley  tariff,    the 36 

Dingley  tariff  law,  Republican  opinions  on 71 

Disaster,  panic  and,  threatened  under  Harrison  administration Ill 

Disaster,  panic  and,  averted  by  using  national  bank  funds 112 

Domestic   development 7 

Dun's  index  numbers 68 

Duty,  average  1821-1861 31 

Duty  paid  on   hides,   amount  of 165 

E 

"Easy  international  morality,"  Roosevelt  on 193 

Economy   of   administration 4 

Edmunds,  Senator,  on  who  pays  the  tariff  tax 159 

Eight-hour  law,  Democrats  first 178 

Eight-Hour  Law,  vote  in  House  on 281 

Election  of  senators  by  the  people 7 

Engines,  bids  for,  for  canal 131 

English  prices 68 

Enterprise  bank  failure 173 

Estimated  stock  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  United  States 298 

Estimate  of  tariff  profits 43 

Estimates,    ante-election 100 

Evarts,  W.  M.,  compares  American  and  foreign  labor 156 

Evidence,    Babcock    (Republican)    gives 

Evidence  at  home 57 

Evidence  from   abroad 56 

Evidence  from  the  Iron  Age 54 

Evidence,  further,   produced 49 

Evidence  of  a  protectionist \ 54 

Excess  of  exports  under  McKinley  Tariff  Act 114 

Excess  of  exports  ilnder  Wilson  Tariff  Act 114 

Exchanging  legal  tender  for  gold,  Mr.  Foster  in  New  York 108 

Executive  usurpation 5 

Executive  usurpation,  ratification  of  vote  in  House  on. . . ,  t 290 


INDEX.  311 


Expenses,  President's  traveling,  vote  in  House  on 288 

Expenses,  traveling,  of  the  President,  vote  in  Senate  on 278 

Export  prices  cheaper    44 

Export  and  home  prices,  comparison  of 244 

Export  prices,  fail  to  answer  as  to 46 

Export  prices  cut 143 

Export  prices  of   steel 42 

Exports  of  agricultural    implements 59,    75 

Exports  of  manufactures    74 

Exports,  excess  of,  under  Wilson  Tariff  Act 114 

Exports,  excess  of,  under  McKinley  Tariff  Act 114 

Exports,  imports  and,  under  Wilson  Tariff  Act 114 

Exports,  imports  and,  under  McKinley   Tariff   Act 114 

Exports,  gold,  again  resumed 108 

Exports  of  gold,    remarkable 101 

Exports,  United  States  gold  coin 306 

Exposed,   Steel  Trust 141 

Extravagant  appropriations,  Fifty-ninth  Congress 153 

F 

Fabrications,   Republican,   overtaken 107 

Facts,  some  about  the  panic  of  1893 117 

Facts,  historical    20 

Fail  to  answer  as  to  export  prices 46 

Failure,   McKinley   tariff  a • 92 

Failures,    commercial,    1880-1903 107 

Failure,  the  Enterprise  Bank 173 

Failure,  the  Walsh  Bank 172 

Farmers  and   the  tariff 165 

Farmers,  taxes  paid  by 170 

Farmers  and  trust  plundering 70 

Farming  property,  comparison  with  national  wealth 165 

Farming  property,  increase    in    acreage 165 

Farewell  advice,  President  Jackson's. . '. 34 

Farquhar,  Mr.  A.  B.,  tariff  a  swindle,  etc 59 

Favoritism  to  foreigners 43 

Federal  Government  contract  with  trusts 4 

Figures   won't   lie 66 

Fifty  men,  what  they  can  do,  Mr.  Depew 144 

Fifty-ninth  Congress,  extravagant  appropriations  of 153 

Financial    stringency,    Harrison   administration Ill 

First  tariff  act,  1789 12 

First  House  resolution  to  investigate  trusts 204 

First  Senate  resolution  to  investigate  trusts 206 

Foreign  and  American  labor,  productivity  of 156 

Foreign  cement    bought 127 

Foreign  supplies  purchased  by  Mr.  Taft 127 

Foreigners,    favoritism   to 43 

Foreigners,  Americans  pay  taxes  for  benefit  of 66 

Foster  confesses   deficit 99 

Foster  held  up  payment,  etc 110 

Foster,  "I  made  as  good  a  statement  in  my  report  as  I  could" 97 

Foster's  bond  plate  order 105 


312  INDEX. 


Foster's  plan,  real  significance  of 97 

Foster,  Mr.,  annual  report  1892,  loss  of  gold  by  export 102 

Foster,  Mr.,  concealed  deficit  in  1893  by  using  national  banls  funds..  112 

Foster,  Mr.,  condemns  Sherman  Silver  Law 97 

Foster,  Mr.,  got    the    gold 109 

Foster,  Mr.,  movement  of  gold 101 

Foster,  Mr.,  more  revenue  needed 100 

Foster,  Mr.,  and  New  York  banks 108 

Foster,  Mr.,  in  New  York  exchanging  legal  tenders  for  gold 108 

Foster,  Mr.,  omitted  to  tell 105 

Foster,  Mr.,  "paddled    along" 95,   98 

Foster,  Secretary,  before  House  Committee 93-95 

Foster,  Secretary,  held  up  payment  of  requisites 95,  97 

Free  coal,    resolution   on 161 

Free  hides,  Mr.  Blaine  for 162 

Free  list,  the  monopolized  article 161 

Free  lizards  vs.  free  building  material 139 

Free  trade,  ultimate,  Garfield  for 24 

Free  trader  and  stand-patter,  Mr.  Roosevelt 189 

Further  evidence  produced 49 

Fundamental  principles  of  Democracy 3,  10 

G 

Gage,  Secretary  of  Treasury,  and  New  York  City  Bank 175 

Garfield,  Mr.,  on  free  salt 161 

Garfield,  Mr.,  on  tariff 23 

Garfield  for  ultimate  free  trade 24 

Gary,  E.  H.,  evidence  shown  to  be  unreliable 141 

Gear,  Mr.  John  H.,  on  tariff  tax 160 

Gold,  cash  and,  needed , 100 

Gold  exports  again  resumed 108 

Gold  for  legal  tenders,  Mr.  Foster  in  New  York  exchanging 308 

Gold,  remarkable    exports    of 101 

Gold  and  silver,  estimated  stock  of 298 

Gold,   production   of 298 

Gold  and  silver   statistics 299 

Gold  and  silver,  stock    of 303 

Gold  and  silver,  coinage    of 302 

Gold  and  silver,  product  of 304 

Gold,  premium  on 305 

Gold  coin,    net   exports   of 306 

Good  for  the  soul •  •  •  •  125 

Got   the   gold,    Mr.    Foster 109 

Government,   counsel  for,   incompetent 218 

Government,  Federal,  contract  with  trusts 4" 

Government  partnership  with  monopolies  and  trusts 48 

Grievances,    labor's 184-186 

Guarantees,    constitutional 4 

Guild,  Governor,  is  quoted T'S 

H 

Habeas  corpus  proceedings 216 

Hale,  Mr.,  on  free  salt 161 


INDEX.  313 


Hale,  Senator,  on  McKinley  tariff 91 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  on  wlio  pays  the  tariff  tax 159 

Harrison  administration,  Democrats  Inlierited  discouraging  conditions 

from    112 

Harrison  administration,  financial  stringency  under Ill 

Havana,  the,  purchased  at  excessive  price 129 

Havemeyer,  Mr.  Henry  O.,  testifies 57 

Havemeyer,  Mr.,  on  forming  the  sugar  trust 38 

Held  up,  payments  of  requisitions,  by  Mr.  Foster 95,  97 

Hides,  amount  of  duty  paid  on 165 

Hides,  free,  Mr.  Blaine  for 162 

High  tariff  killed  shipbuilding 26 

High  tariff,  ship   subsidies   and 131 

Historical  facts 20 

History,    tariff 20 

History  of  tariff    changes 17 

History  of  the  Commerce  Act,  1887 146 

History,  party  on  monopolies  and  trusts 200 

History,  Railroad  Law,   1906 150 

Home,  evidence  at 57 

Home  prices,  comparison  of  with  export 244 

How  the  trusts  have  increased  prices 70 


Imperialism    5 

Implements,  agricultural,  exported 75 

Imports  and  exports  under  Wilson  Tariff  Act 114 

Imports  and  exports  under  McKinley  Tariff  Act 114 

Inaugural    address,    Jefferson 10 

Income  tax  plank    113 

Income  tax,  revenue    from 113 

Incompetent  counsel  for  Government 218 

Inconsistencies,  Roosevelt's.  . 195 

Increased,  carpet  manufacturing 27 

Increased  cost  of  agricultural  machinery 167 

Increased,  labor   and   wages .» 20 

Increase  in  exports  of  manufacturers 74 

Increased,    manufacture   of  paper 26 

Increased  prices,  how  the  trusts  have 70 

Increased,  postofiices 26 

Increased  tariff  rates,  how 37 

Increase  of  wealth,  Mr.  Morrill 31 

Industrial  commission   report 45 

Industrial  corporations    organized 39 

Injunction    suits 216 

Injunctions,  Mr.  Roosevelt  on 187 

Insurance,  life  scandal  and  Republican  scandal 119 

Intellectual  conditions,  revenue  tariff  promotes 26 

International    steel    agreements 42 

Investigation  "unconstitutional,"  Mr.  Shaw 192 

Iron  and  steel   cheapest 44 

Iron  Age,  evidence  from 54 

Iron  and  steel,  tariff  on 116 


314  INDEX, 


Iron  and  steel,  United  States  predominant  in 133 

Iron  production,  revenue  tariff  promotes '. 27 

Isthmian  Canal 7 

J 

Jackson,  Andrew,  on  who  pays  the  tariff  tax 159 

Jackson,  President,   farewell   address 34 

Jefferson's  inaugural  address 10 

Jefferson  on  property 144 

Jekyll  and  Hyde  stand  of  "stand-patters" 137 

L 

Labor,  capital  and 3 

Labor  combination  case 21G 

Labor's  grievances 184-186 

Labor,  organized,  Mr,   Roosevelt  on 186 

Labor,  organized.  Democrats  first  to  recognize 178-188 

Labor  and  wages  increased 26 

Labor,  table  showing  comparisons  of 158 

La  Follette's  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill,  vote  in  Senate  on...  272 
La  Follette's  amendment  regarding   valuation    of   Railroad    property, 

vote  in  Senate  on 274 

La  Follette's  amendment  as  to  employers'  liability,  vote  in  Senate  on.  275 

Lamb,  Henry  W.,  testimony  of 143 

Legal  tenders  for  gold,  Mr.  Foster  in  New  York  exchanging 108 

Life  insurance  scandal.  Republican  corruption  and 119 

Limited  incomes,  those  with,  plundered  by  tariff 66 

Lincoln,    President,    on   war    tariff 34 

List   of   anti-trust   bills 203 

List  of  trusts  in  the  United  States 293 

Living,  cost  of,  compared    165 

Living,  cost  of,  higher     66 

Livingston,  Hon.   Leonidas,  synopsis  of  speech 168 

Lizards,  free,  vs.  free  building  material .  .  .  *. 139 

London  Economist,   index  number 69 

Lovering,  Mr.,  tariff  on  machinery  should  be  reduced 76 

Low  tariff  increases    manufacturing , 25 

Low  tariff,  what  it  did  for   the   country 24 

Lumber  trust   case 218 

M 

Machinery,  agricultural,  Canadian   Tariff  Commission  on 168 

Machinery,  agricultural,  increased    cost  of 167 

Machinery,  agricultural,  sold  cheaper  abroad 58 

Machinery,  tariff  on  should  be  reduced,  Mr.  Lovering 76 

Manufactures,  American,  sold  cheaper  abroad 58 

Manufactures,  comparison  of 165 

Manufactures,  exports    of 74 

Manufacture  of  paper  increased 26 

Manufacturers'  Association  acts 126 

Manufacturing,  low  tariff  increases. 25 

Marine,   merchant 8 

Markets,  open,  a  wise  policy 127 


INDEX,  315 


Material,  other,   purchased 129 

Material  for  Panama  Canal,  vote  in  House  on 285 

Matters    affecting    the    President 197 

McKinley  tariff,  disastrous  effect  of  on  wages 80-89 

McKinley  tariff  aids  trusts 90-91 

McKinley  tariff.  Senator  Hale  on 91 

McKinley  tariff  a    failure 92 

McKinley  tariff  and  Sherman  law  failed 97 

McKinley  tariff,    deficit   under 109 

McKinley  tariff,  quarterly    deficits    under 110 

McKinley  tariff,  panic  and  disaster  threatened  under Ill 

McKinley  Tariff  Act,  excess  of  exports  under 114 

McKinley  Tariff  Act,  values   of   imports   under 114 

McKinley  Tariff  Act,  receipts  from  customs,  etc.,  under 115 

McKinley,  President,  states  United  States  is  predominant  in  iron  and 

steel 133 

McKinley  tariff,  operations  of  by  months 252 

Mexico,  the,  purchased  at  excessive  price 129 

Merchant  marine 8 

Miller,  W.  A.,  Mr.  Roosevelt  on 188 

Mills,  Senator,  on  American  and  foreign  labor 157 

Minority,  Republican,  confess J>8 

Mint  report,  1892 102 

Money,    world's    stock    of ; .  .  .  .  300 

Monopolies  and  trusts,  party  history  on 200 

Monopolized  article,  free  list,  the 161 

Monopolies  and  trusts.  Government  partnership  with 48 

Monroe    doctrine 8 

Monroe  doctrine,  praised  and  pef  verted ]  94 

Monthly  farm  wages 231 

Movement  of  gold,  Mr.  Foster 101 

More  revenue  needed,  Mr.  Foster 100 

Morgan's  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill,  vote  in  Senate  on 272 

Morgan   Anti-Trust   Law 209 

Morrill,  Senator,  on  ship  subsidies  and  high  tariff 132 

Morrill,  Mr.,  on  increase  of  wealth 31 

Morrill,  Mr.,  testifies    123 

Motive  behind  the  big  stictc 193 

Mount,  Governor,  on  revenue  protection 101 

Mr.  Foster,  new  system  of  counting  cash 96 

N 

National  banks  and   bank   deposits 198 

National  bank  funds,  panic  and  disaster  averted  by  using 112 

National  City  Bank  of  New  York,  corrupt  sale  of  New  York  Custom 

House    175 

Needed  cash  and  gold 100 

Negligence   of   Attorney-General    Miller 223 

Net  exports  United  States  gold  coin 306 

New  England  charge 32 

New  York  banks  and  Mr.  Foster 108 

New  York  Custom  House,  corrupt  sale  of 175-178 

New  system  of  counting  cash,  Mr.  Foster 96 

North  Carolina,  wages,  1904 231 


316  INDEX. 


O 

OflScial  proof   of   quarterly   deficits Ill 

Ofllcial  wage  figures,  United  States 240 

Olilo,  wages  in,  1904 , 234 

Omitted  to  tell,  Mr.  Foster .,••••. •  •  105 

One  great  cause 102 

Open  markets  a  wise  policy 127 

Open  markets,  Mr.  Shouts  on  purchase  of  supplies 130 

Open  shop,  Mr.  Roosevelt  on 188 

Operation  of  Treasury  Department 92-Q3 

Operations  of  McKinley  tariff  by  months 252 

Organized  labor,  Mr.  Roosevelt  on 186 

Organized  labor.  Democrats  first  to  recognize 178-188 

Order,  Mr.  Foster's  bond  plate 105 

P 

Paddled  along,  paying  Uncle  Sam's  debts 95,  98 

Panic  of  1857,  Mr.  Edward  Atkinson  on 32 

Panic  and  disaster  averted  by  using  national  bank  funds 112 

Panama  Canal,  bid  for  rails  for 131 

Panama  Canal,  purchase  of  material  for,  vote  in  House  on 285 

Panic-proof,   is  protection 21 

Panic  of  1893,   some  facts  about 117 

Panic  and  disaster  threatened  under  Harrison  administration Ill 

Panama   supplies 126-129 

Paper,  manufacture  of  increased 20 

Parker  spoke  the  truth 123 

Parker's  charge  of  corruption  fund 119 

Parker's  charge  of  corruption  fund,    proven 122 

Partnership,  Government,  with  monopolies  and  trusts 48 

Party  history  on  monopolies  and  trusts 200 

Party  questions,  yea  and  nay  votes  on 267 

Payment  of  requisites  held  up  by  Mr.  Foster 95,  97 

Payne,  Mr.,  on  who  pays  the  tariff  tax 160 

Pennsylvania  shared  well 27 

Pennsylvania,   wages  in,   1904 234 

Pensions  and  our  soldiers  and  sailors 8 

People,  election  of  senators  by 7 

Perkins,  Mr.,  testifies 124 

Perpetual,  protective  tariffs  not  to  be 18 

Philippine  blackmail  collections,  vote  in  House  on 290 

Pipe  trust  case 220 

Platform  of  the  Democratic  party,  1904 3 

Platform,  Democratic,  on  tariffs  and  trusts 19 

Platform,  Republican,  on  tariffs  and  trusts 19 

Plundering  the  farmers,  trusts  and 70 

Points,  Hon.  Leonidas  F.  Livingston 168 

"Political   claims,"   New  York   City  Bank 175 

Polygamy,  condemnation  of 8 

Population  and  wealth  of  United  States 113 

Postoffices    increased 26 

Predominant  in  iron  and  steel.  United  States  is 133 

Premium  of  gold 205 


INDEX.  317 


President,   matters  affecting  the 19  f 

President,  traveling  expenses  of,  vote  in  Senate  on 278 

President's  traveling  expenses,  vote  in  House  on 288 

Press,  the  New  York  Daily,  on  steel  trust 136 

Prices  and   wages 67 

Prices  of  boots  and  shoes 164 

Prices,   export,   cheaper 44 

Prices,  export,  cut 143 

Price  of  tools  raised 143 

Prices,  trusts   raise 38 

Prices,  wholesale,   1897-1905 229  231 

Prices,  comparison  of  export  with  home 244 

Principles,    fundamental   of   Democracy , 3,  10 

Product  of  gold  and   silver 304 

Productivity  of  American  and  foreign  laBor 156 

Profits,   estimate,   of   tariff 43 

Property,  Jefferson  on 144 

Proof,   the 122 

Proof,  official,  of  quarterly  deficits Ill 

Proposed  ship  subsidy  legislation 134 

Prosecuting  ( ?)  the  trusts 224 

Prosecution  of  the  trusts  a  record  of  masterly  inefficiency 226-228 

Protection,  is  it  panic  proof 21 

Protection,   remove,  Governor   Mount 161 

Protectionist,   a,   evidence   of . 54 

Purchased,  other  material 129 

Production   of    gold 298 

Protective  tariff  not  to  be  perpetual 18 

Purchase  of  material  for  Panama  Canal,  vote  in  House  on 285 

Pure  Food  Law,  vote  in  Senate  on 267 

Qaiarterly  deficits  under  McKinley  tariff 110 

Quarterly  deficits,  official  proof  of Ill 

R 

Race   question,   schools   and 9 

Rails  for  Panama  Canal,  bid  for " 131 

Railroad  combinations,    against. 210 

Railroad  combination    case 217 

Railroad  building  fiourished 26 

Railroad  employees,  wages  of 65 

Railroad  Law,  1906,  history 150 

Raise  price  of  tools, 143 

Ratification  of  Executive  usurpations,  vote  in  House  on 290 

Reagan  bill,  vote  on 207 

Real  significance  of  Foster's  plan 97 

Receipts  and  expenditures,  1892 99 

Receipts  and  expenditures,  1893 99 

Receipts  and  expenditures,  1894 100 

Receipts  from  customs,  etc.,  under  Wilson  Tariff  Act Ii5 

Receipts  from  customs,  etc.,.  under  McKinley    Tariff    Act 115 

Reciprocity 8 


318  INDEX. 

Reciprocity    defeated 38 

Recommendations  of  tlie  commission 351 

Redemptions    109 

Redemption   of  notes 305 

Reduce    duty,    Senator    Sherman 162 

Relief  refund  to  San  Francisco 138 

Remarlcable    exports   of   gold 101 

Remove  protection,  Governor  Mount •  • 161 

Report,  Foster's,  "as  good  as  I  could" 97 

Report,  Industrial   Commission •  •  •  • •. 45 

Report,  mint,  1892 102 

Report,  Treasury,  December  1,  1890 Ill 

Report,  June  12,  1890,  action  on 212 

Republican  administration     9 

Republican  corruption  and  life  insurance  scandal 119 

Republican  deficit  $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000 98 

Republican  fabrication    overtaken 107 

Republican  minority    confess , 98 

Republican  opinions  on  the  Dingley  Tariff  Law 71 

Republican  platform  on  tariffs  and  trusts 19 

Republican  tariff   changes 35 

Republicans    admit  selling  cheaper  abroad 45 

Republicans  commend   tariff,    1846 '^  •  •  > 31 

Republicans  vote  to  give  trusts  control »>'.  .h  «.. 127 

Republicans,  what  they  say  on  tariff. 73 

Requisitio-ns,  payment  of,  held  up  by  Mr.  Foster 95,  97 

Revenue  from  income  tax 113 

Revenue  tariff,  steel  industry  born  under , ^ 27 

Revenue  tariff  promotes  iron  production 27 

Richardson,  Mr.,  on  ship  subsidy  legislation 134 

Roach,  John,  on  ship  subsidies  and  high  tariff 131 

Rogue's  gallery,  Mr.   Roosevelt's .  . . .  ^ 186 

Roosevelt  appropriates    Democratic    policies .,. 145 

Roosevelt,  asphalt   trust   and   Venezuela 194 

Roosevelt,  big  military  and  naval  force 193 

Roosevelt  on  "easy  international  morality" 193 

Roosevelt  favors  big  corporations 193 

Roosevelt  a  free  trader  and  stand-patter,  etc 189 

Roosevelt  on    injunctions 187 

Roosevelt,  Monroe  doctrine  praised  and  perverted 194 

Roosevelt  on  W.  A.   Miller 188 

Roosevelt  on  open  shop 188 

Roosevelt  on  organized  labor 186 

Roosevelt  on  the  shadow  of  oui;  destiny 193 

Roosevelt,  subsidized  merchant  marine 193 

Roosevelt  wanted   to  amend   the   Constitution 224 

Roosevelt'3  administration,    Bryan    on 145 

Roosevelt's  denials   false 123 

Roosevelt's  inconsistencies 195 

Roosevelt's  "Rogue's    gallery" 186 

Roosevelt's  denial  as  to  corruption  fund    120 

Roosevelt's  denial  as  to  corruption  fund  proven    false 122 

Rucker,  Mr.,  on  the  farmer  and  the  tariff 165 

Russian  telephones,  Americans  to  install ■. 143 


mimx.  '  319 

s 

Salt,  free,  Mr.   Garfield  on 161 

Salt,  free,  Mr.  Hale  on 161 

Salt  Industry 75 

San  Francisco,  lizards  free  but  building  material  taxed 139 

San  Francisco,  relief  of,  refused 138 

Sauerbeck's  prices  index.  . .  .■ 69 

Scandals,  departmental 172 

Scandal,  life  insurance,  and  RepublicaB  scandal 119 

Scandal,  purchase  of  ships  at  excessive  price 129 

Scandal,  the  Cortelyou 119-126 

Schwab,    Mr.,    testifies 57 

Schools  and  race  question 9 

Senators,  election  of  by  people 7 

Sequel,  what  it  proves 123 

Serious    trouble 101 

"Shadow  of  our  destiny,"  Roosevelt  on 193 

Shaw  lets  the  cat  out  of  the  bag 38 

Shaw,  Secretary,  admits  it 47 

Shaw,  Mr.,  "investigation  unconstitutional" 192 

Sherman,  Senator,  when  trusts  and  combinations  started 34 

Sherman  silver  law  condemned  by  Mr.  Foster 97 

Sherman  Law,  McKinley  tariff  and,  failed 97 

Sherman,  Senator,  on  ship  subsidies  and  high  tariff 132 

Sherman,  Mr.,  on    "combination" 161 

Sherman,  Senator,  on  who  pays  the  tariff  tax 159 

Sherman,  Senator,  "reduce   duty" 162 

Sherman's  plan 204 

Sherman  resolution,    the 206 

Sherman  anti-trust  law.  Supreme  Court  divided  on 211 

Shipbuilding,   high   tariff  killed 26 

Ship  subsidies  and    high    tariff 131 

Ship  subsidy  legislation  proposed 134 

Ship  Subsidy  bill,  vote  in  Senate  on 268 

Ships  purchased   at   excessive   price 129 

Shipbuilding  material  cheaper  abroad 52 

Shoes  and  boots,  prices  of 164 

Shoes,  tax  on  hides  is  a  tax  on 163 

Shonts,  Mr.,  on  purchase  of  materials  In  open  market 130 

Silver,  small  coin  on  hand 104 

Silver  and  gold,  estimated  stock  of 298 

Silver  and  gold  statistics 299 

Silver  and  gold,  stock    of 303 

Silver  and  gold,  coinage    of 302 

Silver  and  gold,  product  of 304 

Small  silver  coin  on  hand 104 

Some  facts  about  the  panic  of  1893 117 

Splght,  Mr.,  on  steel  trust  and  ship  subsidies 135 

Stand-patters,  Dr.  .Tekyll  and  Mr.  Hyde 137 

Stand-patters,  attitude  toward  relief  of  San  Francisco 138 

Statehood  for  territories 7 

Statehood  bill,  Foraker  amendment,  vote  in  Senate  on 269 

Statehood  bill,  vote  in  House  on 279 


320  INDEX. 


Statistics    on    wages 231-243 

Statistics,  gold  and  silver 299 

Steel  Industry  born  under  revenue  tariff 27 

Steel  trust    analyzed 41 

Steel,  export  prices  of 42 

Steel  agreements,    international 42 

Steel  rails,  40  per  cent,  cheaper  abroad 49 

Steel,  Iron  and,  tariff  on ' 116 

Steel,  Iron  and,  United  States  predominant  m 133 

Steel  Trust  and  ship  subsidies,  Mr.  Spight  on 135 

Steel  Trust,  New  York   Daily   Press  on 136 

Steel  rails,  prices  "fixed" 141 

Steel  Trust  exposed 141 

Steel  bought  cheaper  abroad 143 

Stock  of  gold  and  silver 300 

Stone,  Senator,  on  purchase  of  ships  at  excessive  price 129 

Stringency,  financial,  unuer  Harrison  administration Ill 

Subsidized  merchant  marine,  Roosevelt  on 193 

Sugar  Trust,  Mr.  Havemeyer  on  farming 88 

Sugar  Trust  case    218 

Sugar  Trust  case,  negligjence  of  Attorney-General  Miller  lost 223 

Supplies,    Panama 126,  129 

Supreme  Court,  divided  on  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law 211 

Supreme  Court  decisions  ]  50 

Swindle,  tariff,  Mr.  A.  B.  Farquhar 59 

T 

Taft,  Mr.,  purchases  foreign  supplies 127 

Tariff,  the   5 

Tariff  Act  1789,  first. 12-13 

Tariffs,   1789-1906,   comparison  of 13-16 

Tariff  rates,  average,  1789  1905 . .      17 

Tariff  changes,  history  of 17 

Tariffs,  protective,  not  to  be  perpetual 18 

Tariff  and    trusts 19 

Tariff  and  trusts.  Democratic  platforms  on 19 

Tariffs  and  trusts.  Republican  platform  on 19 

Tariff  history    20 

Tariff  1857    21 

Tariff  of  1846,  Mr.  Blaine  on 21-22 

Tariff,  David   A.    Wells   on 22-23 

Tariff,  Mr.  Garfield  on 23 

Tariff,  a  war  measure 24 

Tariff  low,  what  It  did  for  the  country 24 

Tariff  low,  increases  manufacturing. 25 

Tariff  high,  killed    shipbuilding 26 

Tariff,  revenue,  promotes   intellectual   conditions 26 

Tariff,  revenue,  promotes    iron    production 27 

Tariff  votes  on   1789-1883 28-30 

Tariff  of  1846,  more  Republicans  commend 31 

Tariff  of  1846,  Senator  Wilson  on 32 

Tariff,  Civil   War   to   be   temporary 33 

Tariff  of  1857  commended 3«3 

Tariff  changes,  Republican 35 


INDEX.  321 

Tariff  law,    the    Dingley 36 

Tariff  rates,    how   increased 37 

Tariff  rates,  100  per  cent,  or  more 37 

Tariff  fosters    trusts 39 

Tariff  products    disguised . .  .* 41 

Tariff  profits,    estimate    of 43 

Tariff  a  swindle  on  the  farmer,  Mr.  A.  B.  Parquhar 59 

Tariff,  how  it  affects  wages  and  incomes ' 64 

Tariff,  what  Republicans  say  on ; 73 

Tariff  on  machinery  should  be  reduced,  Mr.  Lovering 76 

Tariff,  McKinley,  disastrous  effect  of  on  wages 80-89 

Tariff,  McKinley,  aids    trusts 90-91 

Tariff,  McKinley,  Senator  Hale  on ^ 91 

Tariff,  McKinley,  a  failure 92 

Tariff,  McKinley,  and  Sherman  law  failed 97 

Tariff,  McKinley,  deficits   under 109 

Tariff,  McKinley,  quarterly  deficits  under 110 

Tariff,  McKinley,  panic  and  disaster  threatened  under Ill 

Tariff  on  iron  and  steel 116 

Tariff,  high,  ship  subsidies  and 131 

Tariff  tax,  who  pays  It 159 

Tariff  tax.  Senator  Sherman  on  who  pays  the 159 

Tariff  tax,  Andrew  Jackson   on   who   pays   the 159 

Tariff  tax,  Henry  Clay  on  who  pays  the 159 

Tariff  tax,  John  Quincy  Adams  on  who  pays  the 159 

Tariff  tax,  Alexander  Hamilton  on  who  pays  the 159 

Tariff  tax,  Senator  Edmunds  on  who  pays  the 159 

Tariff  tax,  Mr,  Payne  on  who  pays  the 160 

Tariff  tax,  Mr.  John  H.  Gear  on  who  pays  the 160 

Tariff,  the    farmers    and 165 

Tariff,  agriculture  and,  Hon.  L.  F.  Livingston 168 

Tariff,  effect  of  on  rural  wealth 169 

Tariff,   articles  bearing  100  per  cent,  or  more 248 

Tax  on  hides  is  a  tax  on  shoes 163 

Tax,  income,    planls 113 

Tax,  Income,  revenue  from 113 

Taxes  paid  by  farmers 170 

Telephones,   Americans   to   install   Russian 143 

Temporary,  Civil  War  tariff  to  be 33 

Territories,   statehood  for 7 

Thimmel,  Mr.,  testifies. . .  T 124 

Trade,  balance  of  against  us 101 

Trans-Missouri  Freight  Association  case 219 

Traveling  expenses  of  the  President,  vote  in  Senate  on 278 

Traveling  expenses.  President's,  vote  ia  House  on 288 

Tools,  American,  cheaper  in  Germany. 60 

Tools,  price   of   raised 143 

Treasury,  condition  of,  1889,   1893,  1897 102 

Treasury  Department,   operations   of 92-93 

Treasury  report,   December   1,    1890 Ill 

Trouble,    serious 101 

Trusts,  Federal  Government  contract  with 4 

Trusts  and  unlawful  combinations 6 

Trusts,    tariff    and 19 


322  INDEX. 


Trusts,  tariflP  and,  Democratic   platform  on. . 19 

Trusts,  tariflP  and,  Republican  platform  on.  .... . . 19 

Trusts  and  combinations,  when  started 34 

Trusts  and  combines 39 

Trusts  fostered  by  the  tariff ; 39 

Trusts  raise  prices ..••.•.•/:•_-  •  »•  •?  ? ^  •  •  • ^^ 

Trusts  unincorporated    y.  .y**>,^%  ^ <#.-... ..; 40 

Trust,  a    typical 41 

Trust,  Steel,    analyzed .  .^ 41 

Trusts  and  monopolies,  Government  partnership  with 48 

Trust  plundering,  farmers  and 70 

Trusts  aided  by  McKinley  tariff 90-91 

Trusts,  Republicans  vote  to  give  control 127 

Trust,  Steel,   exposed 141 

Trusts,  the.  Senator  Washburn  on 162 

Trusts  and  monopolies,  party  history  on 200 

Trusts,  first  House  resolution  to.  Investigate 204 

Trust,  first  Senate  resolution  to  investigate 20G 

Trusts,  prosecuting    (?)    the 224 

Trusts,  prosecution  of,  a  record  of  masterly  ineflSciency 226-228 

Trusts,  list  of  in   the  United  States 293 

Typical  trust,  a 41 

U 

Ultimate  free  trade,  Garfield 24 

Unincorporated    trusts 40 

United  States  is  predominant  in  iron  and  steel 133 

United  States  official  wage  figures 240 

Unlawful  combinations  and  trusts 6 

Usurpation,    Executive , 5 

Usurpations,  ratification  of  executive,  vote  in  House  on 200 


Value  of  imports  and  exports  under  Wilson   Tariff   Act 114 

Value  of  imports  and  exports  under  McKinley    Tariff    Act 114 

Venezuela  and  asphalt  trust,  Roosevelt 194 

Vote  on  anti-trust    act   of    1890 213 

Vote  on  tariffs,   1789-1883i 28-30 

Vote  in  Senate  on  Pure  Food  Law 267 

Vote  in  Senate  on  Ship    Subsidy    bill 268 

Vote  in  Senate  on  Ship  Subsidy  bill  (Foraker  amendment) 269 

Vote  in  Senate  on  Bailey  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill 270 

Vote  in  Senate  on  Culberson  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill 271 

Vote  in  Senate  on  La  Follette's  amendment  to  Raihoad  Rate  bill .  .   272 

Vote  in  Senate  on  Morgan's  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill 272 

Vote  in  Senate  on  La  Follette's  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill 274 

Vote  In  Senate  on  La  Follette's  amendment  to  Railroad  Rate  bill .  . .   275 

Vote  In  Senate  on  Aldrich  resolution,  Panama  supplies 276 

Vote  In  Senate  on  Bacon's  amendment,  Panama  supplies 277 

Vote  In  Senate  on  President's  traveling  expenses 278 

Vote  in  House  on     Statehood   bill 279 

Vote  In  House  on  Eight-Hour  law 281 

Vote  in  House  on  Contract  Labor  law 281 


INDEX.  323 


Vote  In  House  on  Chinese  Exclusion  Act 281 

Vote  in  House  on  purcliase  of  material  for  Panama  Canal 285 

Vote  in  House  on  President's   traveling  expenses 288 

Vote  in  House  on  ratification  of  executive  usurpation 290 

W 

Wages,  labor    and,    increased 26 

Wages  and  incomes,  liow  affected  by  tariff 64 

Wages  of  railroad  employees 65 

Wages,  prices  and 67 

Wages,  disastrous  effect  of  McKinley   tariff  on 80-89 

Wages,  statistics   on 231-243 

Wages,  monthly,  farm 231 

Wages  in  North    Carolina,    1904 231 

Wages  in  Ohio,   1904 232 

Wages  in  Pennsylvania,    1904 234 

Wages  in  Alabama,   1904 • 239 

Wage  figures,   official,   United    States 240 

Wall  Street  News,  extract  from 125 

Walsh  Bank  failure 172 

Wannamaker,  Mr.,  testifies 125 

War  tariff,  President  Lincoln  on 34 

War  measure,   tariff  a 24 

Washburn,  Senator,  on  the  trusts 162 

Waterways    4 

Watch  Trust  sells  cheaper  abroad 60 

Wealth,  Mr,  Morrill  on  increase  of 31 

Wealth,  population  and,  of  United  States 113 

Wells,  David  A.,  on  tariff \ 22-23 

What  we  sell  abroad 171 

Whiskey   Trust   cases ^ 216 

Wholesale  prices  of  boots  and  shoes 164 

Wholesale  prices,    1897-1905 229-231 

Why  I  am  a  Democrat 11 

Wilmot,  Mr.  F.  A.,  on  monopolies  and  trusts 48 

Wilson,  Senator,  on  tariff  of  1846 32 

Wilson  Tariff  Act,  values  of  imports  under 114 

Wilson  Tariff  Act,  excess    of    exports    under 114 

Wilson  Tariff  Act,  receipts  from  customs,  etc.,  under 115 

Windom,  Mr.,  annual  report,   1890 101 

World's  crops,  our  farmers  share  of 171 

World's  stock  of  money 300 

Wright,  Commissioner,  on'  American  and  foreign  labor 158 

Y 

Yea  and  Nay  votes  on  party  questions 267 


DEMOCRATIC  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE 
CAMPAIGN  OF  J906 


SENATE    MEMBERS 


vANSAS — James  H.  Berry. 
i      -iJiDA — J.  P.  Taliaferro. 
Idaho — Fred  T.  Dubois. 
Missouri — Wm.  J.  Ston*. 

VlRGINIA- 


MoxTAXA — Wm.  A.  Clarlc. 
Nevada — Francis  G.  Newlands. 
Texxessek — Edward  W.  Carmaek. 
Texas — Ciias,  A.  Culberson. 
-Thos.  S.  Martin. 


HOTTSE    MEMBERS 


Alabama — John  L.  Burnett. 
AiiizoxA — Marcus  A.  Smith. 
Arkaxsas— Jolin  S.  Little. 
,Califorxia — James  F.  English. 
•T'oLORADO — John  F.  Shafroth. 
f    .XECTICUT — Henry  F.  Mooney. 

aware — Willard  Saulwbury. 
i '  s  I  RicT  OF  Columbia — James  L. 

X  orris. 
I'i   iHiDA — Frank  Clark. 
(Jkmugia — J.  M.  Griggs. 
Illinois — Henry  T.  Rainey. 
Ixdiaxa — Wm.  T.  Zenor. 
IxDLvx  Territory — C.  H.  Tulley. 
Iowa — Walter  H.  Dewey. 
Kaxsas — A.  M.  Jackson. 
Kextucky — B^rank  A.  Hopkins. 
Louisiana — Robt.  F.  Broussard. 
Maixe— Oliver  Otis. 
Maryland — John  Gill,  Jr. 
Massachusetts — John  A.  Keliher. 
MicHiGAX — Frank  H.   Ilosford. 
Mississippi — E.  J.  Bowers. 
Missouri — James  T.  Lloyd. 
Nm-HASKA — <;.  M.  Hitchcock. 


Nevad.v — C.  D.  Van  Duzer. 
New  Jersey — A.  L.  McDermott. 
New  Hampshire — Geo.  L. 

Dan  forth. 
New  Mexico — O.  N.  Marron. 
New  York — Wm.  H.  Ryan. 
North  Carolixa — Wm.  W.  Kitchin. 
North  Dakota — Willis  A.  Joy. 
Ohio — H.  C.  Garber. 
Oklaho.ma— Roy  E.  Stafford. 
Oreoox — John  E.  Lathrop. 
Pexxsylvaxia — M.  C.  L.  Kline. 
Rhode  Islaxd — D.  L.  D.  Granger. 
South  Carolixa — David  E. 

Finley. 
South  Dakota — C.  Boyd  Barrett 
Texxessee — John  W.  Gaines. 
Texas— Wm.  R.  Smith. 
Utah — Henry  W.  King 
Vermoxt — Morris  F.  Atkins 
ViRoixiA — Robt.  G.  Southall. 
Washixgtox — Bo  Sweeney. 
West  Virgixia — Thos.  B.  Davis 
Wiscoxsix — Chas.  H.  Weisse. 
Wyomixg — J.  E.  Osborne 


CAMPAIGN    COM31ITTEE 


E.  ,T.   Bowers,   Chairman. 

F.  G.  Newlands 
Jas.  T.  Lloyd. 
W.  II.  Ryan. 
Henry  T.  Rainey. 

I).    E.    FlXLEY. 

Chas.  H.  Weisse. 
Johx  a.  Keliheu. 
Frank  Clark. 
Fred  T.  Dubois. 
W.  R.  Smith. 


u 

^ 

tn 

f 
^ 

2 

O 

^p 

Ik 

^ 

o 

9^ 

^^ 

m 

m 

o 

11 

(0 

n 

^- 


o 


Oh 
H 


M 

N 


S    ^ 


^  o 


o  ^  m 


h-r'  % 


C3 


^ 


Of 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

JUL    5  19690* 

REC'D  LD     J 

JL2  '69 -10  PM 

0 

RECD  LD      ^ '^  2 

D   /,i-8PM9  8 

(J60578101476— A-32                    ^'^''^"'^^^J^^^^^^'^^ 

5)£awc-c;t- 


oXlC 


